The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the Bar Council of India (BCI) and State Bar Councils have no authority under the Advocates Act, 1961, to initiate disciplinary action against law students who have not yet enrolled as advocates.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana held that disciplinary matters involving law students fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of their educational institutions.

The ruling came against the backdrop of a controversy involving students of NALSAR University of Law who had opposed the invitation extended to CJI Surya Kant to attend the university’s annual convocation.

“We are of the opinion that the Advocates Act, 1961, where under 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,” the bench observed.

The court said such disciplinary authority comes into effect only after a law graduate is enrolled as an advocate under the Advocates Act. Until then, only the student’s parent institution or an authority empowered under its regulations and by-laws is competent to initiate disciplinary action.

On August 13, BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra directed State Bar Councils not to enrol graduates from NALSAR’s 2026 batch who had opposed the CJI’s participation in the convocation. The directive was withdrawn within hours, with the BCI later stating that it had closed the proceedings after finding that the students had played “no role in any disturbance or movement”.

The matter reached the Supreme Court after two former NALSAR students challenged the withdrawn directive.

Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the case raised important questions concerning freedom of speech and expression within universities. He questioned the legal basis on which the BCI had initiated action against the students and sought accountability for the decision.

Chief Justice Kant observed that the withdrawal of the directive indicated that the BCI had realised that a mistake, “if not a blunder”, had been committed.

Agreeing with the petitioners, the court held that the BCI had no statutory jurisdiction over the conduct of law students before their enrolment as advocates. Such matters, it reiterated, remained the exclusive domain of educational institutions.

With inputs from The Indian Express

Also Read: CJP welcomes SC order quashing protest FIRs, seeks compensation for NEET victims’ families