The Supreme Court delivered a resounding defense of student rights Thursday, drawing a clear boundary around the Bar Council of India's powers. In a landmark decision, the court declared that the BCI—and its chairperson, Manan Kumar Mishra—holds no jurisdiction to discipline or penalize law students.

Key facts

  • BCI lacks statutory power to punish law students
  • Only universities hold disciplinary authority over students
  • Ruling protects NALSAR students who protested convocation speaker
  • BCI had threatened to block professional enrollment

Protecting constitutional rights

The court's intervention came after the BCI sent letters to NALSAR University administration on August 13, demanding an inquiry against students who opposed inviting Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as their convocation chief guest. The students had protested following oral comments the CJI made in court comparing youths to 'cockroaches' and 'parasites'.

Though the BCI withdrew its letters "within one hour" according to Mishra, the three-judge bench led by CJI Kant insisted on clarifying jurisdictional limits to prevent future overreach.

A matter of jurisdiction

"The BCI has no jurisdiction or statutory competence as regards students. That is for their universities," Chief Justice Kant observed during the hearing. The court's order explicitly stated that the Advocates Act, 1961 confers "no power, expressly or impliedly" on the BCI or State Bar Councils to take disciplinary action against law students.

"To say a student will not be enrolled..." Justice Joymalya Bagchi said, leaving the sentence unfinished with palpable disbelief.

Mishra argued that the BCI had a role in regulating legal education, but the court countered that the council's disciplinary powers apply only to registered advocates—not students.

Safeguarding academic freedom

The petition, filed by two former NALSAR graduates represented by senior advocate K. Parameshwar and advocate Rupali Samuel, argued that the BCI's letters had created a "chilling effect" on freedom of speech and association. The court agreed that future protections were necessary.

"Such a situation should never arise," Parameshwar had argued. The bench declared the BCI's August 13 letters "obsolete" and affirmed that only parent universities or competent authorities under law hold disciplinary power over students.