Supreme Court Limits Bar Council of India's Power

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that the Bar Council of India (BCI) and its chairperson, Manan Kumar Mishra, have no legal authority to discipline or penalize law students. The court delivered its judgment on Thursday, September 3, 2026, rebuking the regulatory body for attempting to intimidate students at NALSAR University of Law who were exercising their constitutional right to protest. The three-judge Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, insisted on clarifying the limits of the BCI's powers, even though the council had already withdrawn its controversial letters.

The Court's Core Ruling

Chief Justice Kant stated clearly that the BCI has "no jurisdiction or statutory competence as regards students." The court's written order, following an in-depth consideration, concluded that the Advocates Act of 1961 does not grant any power to the Bar Council of India or State Bar Councils to take disciplinary or punitive action against law students. That authority, the Bench clarified, rests solely with the students' parent universities or other competent legal authorities. The court described the BCI's August 13 letters as "obsolete."

Context of the Petition

The ruling came in response to a petition filed by two former NALSAR graduates, represented by senior advocate K. Parameshwar and advocate Rupali Samuel. They sought legal action against the BCI and Chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra for threatening the 2026 batch of NALSAR students. The students had been protesting the invitation of the Chief Justice as chief guest for their convocation, following his oral comments in court comparing youths to 'cockroaches' and 'parasites'. The petition argued that the BCI's letters, which called for an inquiry and threatened to block professional enrolment, created a chilling effect on freedom of speech and association.

BCI's Defense and Court's Rebuttal

During the hearing, Manan Kumar Mishra, who was present, argued that the BCI had a role in regulating legal education. He also noted that the letters sent to NALSAR and the State Bar Councils had been withdrawn "within one hour" and that there was no reason for further cause of action. The court, however, firmly disagreed with his interpretation of the BCI's remit. Justice Joymalya Bagchi indicated the BCI's role only begins after a student's enrolment, leaving a sentence about blocking enrolment unfinished. The Bench affirmed that the BCI's disciplinary powers under the Advocates Act are strictly limited to registered advocates.

Safeguarding Future Rights

The court agreed with senior advocate K. Parameshwar's argument that it must protect students from future violations of their rights by bodies acting without jurisdiction. Parameshwar had urged the court to ensure such a situation should never arise again. The Bench stated its order was specifically designed to draw a boundary for the BCI to safeguard university space and students' right to freely express dissent against any future attempts to breach those limits. The ruling firmly places disciplinary power over students with their educational institutions, not the bar council.