Jurisdictional Limits of the Bar Council of India: The NALSAR Disciplinary Dispute and Student Rights

Publisher

2 hours ago

Author: Sharanya Das

College: Symbiosis Law School, Pune

Abstract

In Mihira Sood v. Bar Council of India decided on 3 September 2026 the Supreme Court said that the Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils cannot take action against law students who are not enrolled as advocates. The case began when the Chairman of the Bar Council of India barred the enrolment of the 2026 graduating batch from NALSAR because they ran a campaign against the Chief Justice of India. This article explains the scheme, the events behind the ruling and earlier cases, on the powers of the Bar Council of India. It argues that the judgment separates the regulation of advocates from the discipline of students and protects university autonomy and peaceful protest.

To the Point

The BCI is a body that regulates the legal profession sets standards of legal education and disciplines advocates. The question in Mihira Sood was whether the BCI can also discipline law students or graduates who are not yet enrolled. The Supreme Court held that it cannot. The BCI’s authority begins when a graduate is registered as an advocate.

On 13 August 2026 after NALSAR students objected to the invitation to Chief Justice Surya Kant as guest at their convocation the BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra directed all State Bar Councils not to enrol any 2026 NALSAR graduate. He also sought a report on those who had organised the campaign. Within hours a modified communication accepted that most students were innocent although it kept action against instigators open. The Chairman later said the directions were withdrawn within an hour. Alumni Mihira Sood and Abhishek Tiwari approached the Supreme Court. On 14 August a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana disapproved of the BCI’s action observed that students may protest peacefully and barred action, against NALSAR students and faculty. On 3 September the Supreme Court declared the law. Made this protection absolute.

Use of Legal Jargon

A statutory body is a “creature of statute”. It has only the powers the Act gives it, expressly or by necessary implication, and anything beyond them is ultra vires. The Court held that the Advocates Act, 1961 confers no express or implied power on the BCI or any State Bar Council to discipline law students. Such power follows registration as an advocate.

The text supports this. Section 7(1)(b) lets the BCI lay down standards of professional conduct for advocates, and Section 35 punishes an advocate “on its roll” for misconduct. Discipline therefore attaches to persons whose names are on a roll. Section 24 governs eligibility for enrolment and creates no power to punish before it.

The BCI does have a role in education. Section 7(1)(h) lets it promote legal education and set its standards, and Section 7(1)(i) lets it recognise universities whose degrees qualify a person for enrolment. The Court accepted that it may prescribe and enforce such standards, but not discipline an individual student. That power lies with the parent institution, or the authority under its regulations or byelaws.

The dispute also has a constitutional side, which the Court did not need to decide. Article 19(1)(a) and (b) protect free speech and peaceful assembly, and a ban on a whole batch, without notice to any student, raises concerns of collective punishment and audi alteram partem.

The Proof

The events demonstrate why intervention was necessary. The first directive applied to the batch regardless of whether a student participated and soon the BCI accepted that most were innocent. The restriction was narrowed quickly and was too broad from the beginning.

The Court’s order targeted the source of the power. It stated that the communications on 13 August and the revised communication had no authority and it made the interim directions final. This was a finding of no jurisdiction, not an excess.

The public reaction confirmed the worry. One report said that than seven hundred NLSIU students and alumni believed the Chairman could not ban a batch alone and he is said to have apologized to the NALSAR students.

One question remains unanswered. Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar asked whose authority and under which provision the directions were issued. The Court decided to declare the law and dismiss the petition. Its order as reported does not include a finding, on this issue.

Case Laws

1. V. Sudeer v. Bar Council of India (1999)

The Court struck down the BCI’s 1995 Training Rules, which revived an apprenticeship and pre-enrolment examination that the 1973 amendment had removed. The BCI must stay within the conditions for enrolment set by the Act.

2. In re Ramlila Maidan Incident (2012)

The Court held that peaceful assembly and protest are fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) and (b), open only to reasonable restrictions imposed by law. Punishing peaceful protest therefore needs a clear legal basis.

3. Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College (2023)

A five-judge Bench upheld the BCI’s power to conduct the All India Bar Examination. It held that Section 49 gives the BCI wide authority over entry to the profession and that V. Sudeer had wrongly excluded it from the pre-enrolment stage. Power over entry does not include power to punish students.

4. Mihira Sood v. Bar Council of India, Interim Order (2026)

On 14 August 2026, the Court took up the petition a day after the BCI’s directions. The Chief Justice said students have a right to protest peacefully, and Justice Bagchi asked whether the Council had even met to pass such a resolution. The Court barred punitive action against NALSAR students and faculty.

5. Mihira Sood v. Bar Council of India (2026)

The Court held that only the parent institution, or the authority under its regulations or byelaws, may discipline a student, since the BCI’s power follows registration as an advocate. It declared the BCI’s communications to be without authority of law.

Conclusion

Mihira Sood settles that the BCI cannot discipline law students. Its disciplinary power is tied to enrolment, and until then responsibility for student conduct rests with the university. The ruling protects the autonomy of law schools and the freedom of students to protest peacefully without risk to their careers.

The BCI keeps its legitimate functions: professional standards for advocates, standards of legal education, recognition of degrees, and control of entry through the AIBE. But a statutory authority cannot create a power the legislature has not given, and a Chairman’s direction cannot fill that gap.

Such decisions should be taken by the Council as a whole and after due process, and universities should maintain clear codes of conduct and fair procedures. The judgment keeps the regulation of the Bar within the Act, and keeps the law school a place where students can question and protest.

FAQs

Q1. Can the Bar Council of India discipline law students?

No. The Supreme Court held that the Advocates Act, 1961 gives neither the BCI nor any State Bar Council such a power.

Q2. Who can discipline a law student?

Only the parent institution, or the authority prescribed under its regulations or byelaws.

Q3. When does the BCI’s disciplinary authority begin?

Once a law graduate is registered as an advocate.

Q4. Does the BCI have no role in legal education?

It does. It can set and enforce standards and recognise universities, but it cannot discipline individual students.

Reference

● Mihira Sood v. Bar Council of India, W.P. (C) No. 1040 of 2026 (India) (Sept. 3, 2026).

● Advocates Act, 1961, §§ 7(1)(b), 7(1)(h), 7(1)(i), 24, 35, 49 (India).