SC Strikes Down BCI Orders Against Hyderabad Law Graduates, Says Bar Council Have No Power To Regulate Law Students
Summarized by AI; it may make mistakes. Check important info
Summarized by AI; it may make mistakes. Check important info
The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Bar Council of India (BCI) has no statutory power to regulate the conduct of law students or take disciplinary action against them. Settling the high-profile controversy involving Hyderabad’s NALSAR University of Law, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana held that the legal regulator's directives targeting the university's graduating batch were legally flawed and bad in law.
The top court clarified that the disciplinary jurisdiction of the BCI and state bar councils applies only after a law graduate formally enrols as an advocate. Disciplinary authority over enrolled law students rests strictly within their parent academic institution under its governing regulations and bylaws.
How the Convocation Controversy Unfolded
The row began when several students from NALSAR University of Law submitted formal representations to university management requesting a reconsideration of the decision to invite Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as chief guest for their 2026 convocation. The students cited oral observations attributed to the CJI during a court hearing on alleged police excesses during a July march to Parliament, maintaining that their opposition was an exercise of peaceful disagreement grounded in constitutional principles.
Taking exception to the campaign, BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra issued a sweeping directive instructing state bar councils to freeze the enrolment of NALSAR’s 2026 batch as advocates. The BCI asserted that law students showing disrespect towards the highest judicial office were unsuitable for the legal profession, while alleging that a section of university faculty members had instigated the protests.
Top Court Calls Out Regulatory Overreach
Following criticism from legal professionals and bar associations, the BCI initially softened its stance to allow enrolment for most students while maintaining an inquiry into alleged instigators. However, the Supreme Court struck down the directives completely, holding that the BCI exceeded its jurisdiction under the Advocates Act.
Disapproving of the BCI's intervention during the proceedings, CJI Kant observed that peaceful questioning and protest remain integral features of a constitutional democracy. The bench affirmed that an exchange between students and the judiciary lies outside the purview of professional bar regulators, protecting the graduation outcomes of NALSAR students and upholding university autonomy.
