'Disciplinary Control Over Law Students Outside BCI's Statutory Ambit,' Says Supreme Court
New Delhi: The Supreme Court, on Thursday (September 3), said the Bar Council of India (BCI) and state bar councils have no statutory power over law students, enabling the regulatory bodies to take disciplinary actions against them. It is only after law students enrol as advocates that the BCI or state councils have any disciplinary control over them. Until then, it is the students' respective parent institutions and their administrative authorities that wield disciplinary oversight, the court ruled.
The court's order comes in response to a writ petition filed by two NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, alumni – Mihira Sood and Abhishek Tiwari – protesting the BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra's directions issued on August 13, prohibiting the enrolment of 2026 NALSAR graduating batch. Even though Mishra withdrew the directions shortly after, his comments garnered widespread condemnation for threatening law students with unfair punitive action for merely challenging the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant's invitation to their convocation ceremony.
Earlier, on August 14, while looking into the writ petition, the apex court had expressed disapproval over the BCI chairman's actions and had passed an interim order safeguarding NALSAR students and faculty from any punitive measures.
Today, the bench, comprising CJI Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, described the BCI's directives, which included a proposed inquiry into NALSAR students and faculty's purported campaign against the CJI, as "bad in law," reported LiveLaw.
Senior advocate K. Parameshwar, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that despite the orders being withdrawn, an inquiry into the manner in which they were issued was necessary. He argued that the incident had implications far beyond a single student or institution and concerned the sanctity of freedom of speech and expression within university campuses.
"We want to know the circumstances in which these orders came to be passed and whether meetings were held. This is, after all, a statutory authority responsible for legal education and for regulating the legal profession... we want to know how these letters came to be issued, on whose authority and under what provision of law. They now say that the letters have been withdrawn, but that is not the point. They initially said that an entire batch would not be enrolled... We would like to know from the Bar Council how these meetings were held, who took the decision and under what provision of law it was done. They must be held accountable in some fashion... They ought to be called upon to answer for acting in such an arbitrary manner," he said, as quoted by LiveLaw.
Mishra requested the matter to be "quietus," arguing that there was nothing more to be resolved as the order had been withdrawn within an hour of its issuance. However, CJI Kant expressed support for Parameshwar contention, saying that the BCI is just a statutory body overlooking the conduct of advocates and its jurisdiction does not extend to law students.
"We are of the opinion that the Advocates Act, 1961, whereunder the BCI has been statutorily created, does not confer any express or implied power upon the BCI or any State Bar Council to take any disciplinary action against the students of law; such a power is preceded by registration of a law graduate as an advocate under the said Act," the court ordered.
"We declare all communications dated August 13 or subsequent modified communication to be without any authority of law. Interim directions made absolute," it added.
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
