AI-written summary of reporting by The Times of India. No human editor reviewed this. AI can misread or omit facts — read the original, linked below.
ABSTRACT

India's Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Bar Council of India has no jurisdiction to discipline or regulate law students, and declared unlawful a set of letters BCI sent on August 13 threatening to debar Nalsar University law graduates from registering as advocates.

The Times of India

India's Supreme Court strips Bar Council of India of power over law students

India's Supreme Court strips Bar Council of India of power over law students
Sep 3, 2026, 4:51 PM

India's Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Bar Council of India has no jurisdiction to discipline or regulate law students, and declared unlawful a set of letters BCI sent on August 13 threatening to debar Nalsar University law graduates from registering as advocates.

Context

The case arose after students at Nalsar University of Law in Hyderabad opposed an invitation extended to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to serve as chief guest at the institute's annual convocation. BCI responded with letters on August 13 threatening to block the 2026 graduating batch from registering as advocates.

A second BCI letter, while withdrawing the initial threat, directed the university to identify the students who had called for opposing the invitation to CJI Kant, according to senior advocate K Parameshwar, who appeared for former Nalsar graduates who filed petitions against BCI.

On August 14, a bench of CJI Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana stayed both letters, describing them as 'absolutely uncalled for,' and shielded students and faculty from any action the university might take pursuant to BCI's directions.

Thursday's ruling came one day after the same bench entertained separate petitions alleging serious irregularities in BCI's functioning and its composition without proper elections, according to the source.

All Perspectives
Supreme Court bench: The bench held that the Advocates Act, 1961, under which BCI is statutorily created, 'does not confer any express or implied power on BCI or state bar councils to take any disciplinary or punitive action against law students,' and that BCI has disciplinary jurisdiction over law graduates 'only after they have registered as advocates.' The court further stated that 'it is the parent institution or the authority prescribed under laws and bylaws governing the institution who alone have the competence to take disciplinary action' against law students. The bench declared 'all the communications of Aug 13 or subsequent modified communications to be without any authority of law.'
BCI chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra: Mishra pleaded for closure of the issue, stating that the objectionable letters sent to Nalsar on August 13 were withdrawn within hours of being issued.
Senior advocate K Parameshwar (for petitioners): Parameshwar argued that BCI does not have jurisdiction over law students and that the August 13 letters amounted to 'making deep inroads into freedom of speech and expression of students.' He told the court that both letters — the initial threat and the subsequent letter directing the university to identify protesting students — were without jurisdiction.
CJI Kant (statements from August 14 hearing): CJI Kant said on August 14 that BCI 'had nothing to do with the students' protest,' adding: 'The students might have written a letter to me. It is a dialogue between me and students. Who are they (BCI) to unnecessarily create an issue? This action is totally uncalled for.' He also asked Parameshwar to convey to the students 'to get licences to practice at the earliest and begin their careers in Supreme Court. We will empanel them and give them legal aid cases. This will be our response to all those who intend to create impediments in their professional career.'
Position not represented in the source reporting: Nalsar University of Law.
Gaps & Unknowns
  • The source does not state the precise number of students in the Nalsar 2026 batch affected by the August 13 letters.
  • The source does not describe the content or specific nature of the students' objection to the invitation extended to CJI Kant.
  • The source does not state whether Nalsar University took any action against students between August 13 and the court's August 14 stay order.
  • The source does not detail what disciplinary or punitive measures BCI indicated it would impose beyond barring registration as advocates.
  • The source does not specify the current status of the separate petitions alleging irregularities in BCI's functioning and composition, beyond noting they were entertained the previous day.
Sources & Further Reading
  1. The Times of India — original

Read the original at The Times of India

Related Coverage