Supreme Court Rules Bar Council of India Has No Authority to Regulate Law Students

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday held that the Bar Council of India has "no statutory authority to regulate the conduct of law students". The court set aside two BCI notifications issued against students of Hyderabad's Nalsar University of Law.

A bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order. The orders were linked to the students' protest over Chief Justice of India Surya Kant's proposed participation in the university's convocation.

The court's observation came after the BCI initially directed state Bar Councils not to enrol Nalsar's 2026 law graduates as advocates following a student campaign opposing CJI Surya Kant's proposed participation as chief guest at the university's convocation.

The BCI later withdrew the directive and allowed the graduates to be enrolled while an inquiry was pending.

How the Nalsar row began

The controversy began after several Nalsar students submitted representations asking the university to reconsider its invitation to CJI Surya Kant. The students referred to remarks attributed to the CJI during a hearing concerning alleged police excesses against protesters during a July 20 march to Parliament. At least six representations were submitted by students from different batches, with the first being sent on July 23.

The students argued that inviting the CJI was inconsistent with the university's stated commitment to constitutional rights, access to justice and reasoned engagement with grievances. One representation cited the CJI's response to an offer to show videos of the alleged police action: "We are not interested in videos; we don’t have time to watch." It also quoted him as telling counsel: "Don’t waste our time, and don’t waste your time".

The students maintained that their objection was rooted in constitutional values and not disrespect towards the judicial office. "We respect the CJI’s position. But we have been taught the Constitution and constitutional values, and we don’t want to support something that goes against those values," a student who was also part of the Student bar council had told TOI.

The dispute escalated when BCI chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra directed state Bar Councils not to enrol Nalsar's 2026 law graduates as advocates until further orders. The BCI sought a report from Nalsar identifying students who had allegedly initiated, organised or mobilised the campaign against CJI Surya Kant's participation in the convocation.

The council's initial communication stated, “Till further orders, no student of Nalsar University of Law, who has obtained law degree in the year 2026, shall be enrolled by any state bar council as an advocate.”

It also said, “A student of Law, having no regard or respect for the highest judicial office of the country, is not expected to be a responsible or sensible advocate, teacher or a judge. Such persons shall always be a liability on the profession. Such conduct reflects adversely upon the person’s suitability for entry into or association with the legal profession and is inconsistent with the dignity, discipline and ethical standards of the legal profession.”

The BCI further alleged that some members of Nalsar's academic staff had been involved in "misleading, instigating and misguiding" students.

“As per some reliable sources, there exists groupism and dirty politics among some of the academic staff and they have played a very active role in misleading, instigating and misguiding the students. This is a very serious matter. The teachers, instead of involving themselves in their teaching job, are doing nasty politics in the campus. BCI, being the regulator of Legal Education cannot be a mute spectator of such a serious situation.”

The directive drew criticism from sections of the legal fraternity, with Supreme Court bar association president Vikas Singh describing the move as arbitrary, illegal and disproportionate, while maintaining that he did not support the students' opposition to the CJI's invitation.

The BCI withdrew its original directive within hours amid the criticism. In its revised communication, Mishra said the council had “thoroughly discussed and deliberated” on the earlier letter and modified its direction. He said the “vast majority” of Nalsar's 2026 graduating students were innocent and “were not inclined to take part in the move of disrespect”.

However, he added, “It has been further reported by some reliable sources that a handful of teachers and outsiders were instrumental in instigating innocent students.”

The revised decision permitted the 2026 graduates to be enrolled while the BCI awaited an inquiry report from Nalsar.