The Supreme Court on Thursday held that the Bar Council of India (BCI) and State Bar Councils have no statutory power to take disciplinary action against law students. The Bar Councils get disciplinary control over law students only after they enrol as Advocates.

The Court clarified that disciplinary power over students vests only with their parent institution, or the authority prescribed under the regulations or byelaws governing such institution.

Applying this legal position, the Court declared that the directions issued by the Bar Council of India Chairman [which were subsequently withdrawn by the BCI itself] to bar the enrolment of the 2026 graduating batch of the NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, and seeking an inquiry against the students and faculty for their campaign against the CJI, were bad in law.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with a writ petition filed by two NALSAR alumni, Mihira Sood and Abhishek Tiwari, challenging the BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra's directions issued on August 13. After public backlash, the BCI Chairman withdrew the directions immediately.

On August 14, the Court, while dealing with the writ petition, had expressed disapproval of the BCI Chairman's actions. The Court had also passed an interim order protecting the NALSAR students and faculty from any punitive action at the instance of the BCI or any State Bar Council.

Today, the Court disposed of the petition, making the interim order absolute.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate K Parameshwar, for the petitioners, submitted that though the BCI Chairman's directions were withdrawn, there needs to be an inquiry into the manner in which they were issued. To that extent, the petition survived, the senior counsel submitted. "This is a question of freedom of speech and expression in a university. It is not about just one student. It is about banning freedom of speech and expression across an entire university, " he submitted. Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, the BCI Chairman, told the bench that the impugned directions were withdrawn within an hour of their issuance.

Parameshwar, however raised the need to fix accountability on the BCI. "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 added that the BCI has no jurisdiction over law students, and can regulate their conduct only after they enrol as advocates.

Mishra, reiterating that the directions have been withdrawn, requested that the matter be put to "quietus". "Everything has already been closed. The Council, in its meeting, has said that there is nothing further and that everything has been resolved. The letter was immediately withdrawn," he said.

The Chief Justice expressed agreement with Parameshwar's contention. "Mr Parmeswar appears to be right...BCI does not have jurisdiction [over students]...after someone passes out...once a law graduate gets registered as an advocate, then BCI is statutory authority to regulate conduct. But not of students"

The bench said that it will make this declaration of law and dispose of the petition.

The order was dictated as follows :

"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. So far as students are concerned, it is their parent institution or the authority prescribed under the regulations/byelaws of such institution who alone are competent to take disciplinary action. We declare all communications dt. 13 Aug or subsequent modified communication to be without any authority of law. Interim directions made absolute."

Case: MIHIRA SOOD Vs THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 1040/2026

Appearances: Sr Adv K Parameshwar, AoR Rupali Francesca Samuel for the petitioners.

Sr Adv Manan Kumar Mishra, AoR Radhika Gautam for the BCI.