Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on BCI’s Authority
On Thursday, the Supreme Court of India delivered a crucial verdict asserting that the Bar Council of India (BCI) does not hold the jurisdiction to discipline law students prior to their enrollment as advocates. This clarification arose during the examination of the BCI’s recently retracted decision to prevent the enrollment of NALSAR Hyderabad’s 2026 batch students due to their protest against Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant.
The Case Details and Court Observations
A bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana deliberated on the petition titled Mihira Sood and another v. Bar Council of India and others. The Court emphasized that the Advocates Act, 1961, which establishes the BCI, does not endow it with the explicit or implicit power to discipline law students still engaged in their legal studies.
The Court elaborated that any disciplinary measures fall within the purview of the respective educational institution or university where the students are enrolled. Although the BCI is responsible for setting and upholding legal education standards, it cannot extend its regulatory authority to include actions against students. The court further affirmed that BCI’s oversight begins only after a law graduate is enrolled as an advocate.
Justices’ In-Depth Remarks
CJI Surya Kant remarked that the BCI’s role is limited to post-enrollment regulation of advocates. Prior to enrollment, disciplinary jurisdiction belongs exclusively to the universities. Justice Joymalya Bagchi added that universities might choose to allow a student to continue their studies even if involved in an act of moral turpitude. Such decisions lie within the university’s discretion, not the BCI’s.
Justice Bagchi clarified that while the BCI can verify compliance with enrollment prerequisites, it cannot pre-emptively decide against a student’s future enrollment based on their current conduct.
More Read
Resolution and Reactions to BCI’s Circular
The Supreme Court concluded the matter by invalidating the BCI’s August 13, 2026, circular and any subsequent modifications, declaring them issued without jurisdiction. CJI Kant criticized the BCI’s interference, stating it was an unnecessary intrusion into what should have been a dialogue between the students and the university.
The controversy originated from a protest letter by NALSAR students opposing the invitation of CJI Surya Kant as a convocation guest, following his alleged inaction regarding police brutality during Jantar Mantar protests. The students questioned the propriety of accepting degrees from a figure perceived as dismissive of serious civil issues.
In response to this protest, the BCI issued a circular barring NALSAR’s 2026 batch from enrollment, citing alleged staff involvement in misleading students. However, the BCI later retracted this decision but maintained an inquiry into the organizers of the student protest.
NALSAR’s Vice-Chancellor, Prof. Srikrishna Deva Rao, expressed that the university would assess the possibility of conducting such an inquiry within its governance framework. Eventually, the BCI dropped further proceedings, indicating no further action was necessary.
