“No Authority to Act Against Law Students”: Supreme Court Rebukes Bar Council in NALSAR Case

In a major relief for law students, and in a severe rebuke to the Bar Council of India (BCI), the Supreme Court has clarified that neither BCI nor State Bar Councils have “any authority to act against law students”.

 

The Supreme Court’s observations came while hearing a petition challenging the action of the BCI which had directed the Hyderabad-based NALSAR University to cancel the admission process for the 2026 batch, and probe into allegations of a campaign against the Chief Justice of India (CJI) by some students and faculty members.

 

The Supreme Court said that disciplinary authority over law students rests with the educational institutes as well as “other authorities” as provided in the regulations, and not with the Bar Council of India or the State Bar Councils.

 

A bench of the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a petition filed by two alumni of the NALSAR University, Mihira Sood and Abhishek Tiwari, who sought a declaration that the BCI had no authority to take action against the NALSAR students, and faculty members.

 

During the hearing, the Supreme Court noted that the directions issued by the BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra on August 13, which included halting the admission process of students for the 2026 batch at the NALSAR University, and initiating an inquiry into the allegations of campaign against the CJI by some students and faculty members, was issued “without any authority of law”.

 

The controversy started after some students of the NALSAR University allegedly protested against the proposal to invite the CJI for the convocation of the university.

 

The issue saw a massive debate on the free speech rights of the students, and the disciplinary jurisdiction of the BCI over law universities, and law students in general. In what was perceived as a quick reaction to the protests and criticism from all quarters, the BCI Chairman rescinded his directions within an hour of issuing them, and apologised to the NALSAR students for the same.

 

However, the two petitioners, Mihira Sood and Abhishek Tiwari, challenged the very authority of the BCI to take disciplinary action against the NALSAR students, and the faculty members, citing that even the rescinding of the order did not answer the fundamental question with regards to the legal authority of the BCI over law students and institutes.

 

Senior Advocate K Parmweshwar, appearing for the petitioner, sought clarification from the Supreme Court on the legal authority of the BCI to take disciplinary action against the NALSAR students and faculty members. In response, the BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra informed the Court that the impugned directions had been withdrawn, and that the matter had been closed following extensive discussion within the Bar Council.

 

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court found that the matter requires its attention as it pertains to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the BCI, and observes that the “disciplinary jurisdiction of the Bar Council of India or the State Bar Councils does not extend to law students till they are enrolled as advocates”.

 

While disposing of the petition, the Supreme Court held that “the communication… issued and withdrawn by the BCI on 13.8.2023 is issued without any authority of law”.Notably, the Supreme Court also ordered that its earlier interim order protecting the NALSAR students and faculty members from any action by the BCI and the State Bar Councils shall remain in force.The Supreme Court’s order has been seen as a major relief for law students across the country, and a stern reminder to the BCI about the limits of its disciplinary jurisdiction