The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the Bar Council of India (BCI) has no statutory authority to regulate the conduct of law students, delivering a significant judgment in the controversy involving students of Hyderabad's NALSAR University of Law.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana set aside two BCI notifications issued in connection with the NALSAR controversy. The Court made it clear that the BCI's regulatory powers over the legal profession do not extend to students who have not yet become advocates. 

The ruling comes weeks after the BCI briefly directed State Bar Councils not to enrol NALSAR's entire 2026 graduating batch as advocates following a student campaign related to the proposed participation of CJI Surya Kant in the university's convocation.

Supreme Court Draws Line Between Students and Advocates

The central issue before the Court was the extent of the BCI's powers under the Advocates Act, 1961.

The Supreme Court held that the BCI's statutory authority operates within the framework governing the legal profession and does not give it general disciplinary control over students at law universities.

In other words, simply being a law student does not place a person under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the BCI in the same way that an enrolled advocate is.

The Court said it was for the educational institution concerned to take action against students in accordance with its own rules and regulations. 

The judgment therefore establishes an important distinction between legal education and professional regulation.

What Happened at NALSAR?

The controversy began in August when students at NALSAR objected to the proposed participation of Chief Justice Surya Kant in the university's convocation.

The students had raised concerns connected to constitutional rights and the handling of protests, including proceedings before the Supreme Court involving police action against demonstrators.

On August 13, the Bar Council of India directed State Bar Councils not to enrol graduates from NALSAR's 2026 batch as advocates until further orders. The BCI also sought information from the university concerning students allegedly involved in organising the campaign. 

The move triggered immediate criticism.

Within hours, the BCI withdrew the order preventing enrolment of the students.

BCI Chairman Admitted the Decision Was Made in ‘Haste’

BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra later acknowledged that the original order had been issued too quickly.

Speaking to NDTV, Mishra said:

“It was a hasty decision. The council had detailed deliberations and decided to change the order. The issue now stands closed.”

He also said the BCI did not want a confrontation between the legal profession and students. 

The BCI's withdrawal, however, did not end the larger legal question over whether it had the authority to issue such an order in the first place.

That question has now been answered by the Supreme Court.

CJI Surya Kant Had Earlier Questioned the BCI Action

The Supreme Court had already expressed strong reservations about the BCI's action during the controversy.

On August 14, a bench led by CJI Surya Kant described the BCI's move against the NALSAR students as “absolutely uncalled for” and questioned the basis for taking punitive action against students. 

The issue subsequently developed into a broader examination of the BCI's statutory powers.

The Supreme Court's latest ruling now formally settles the specific question of whether the BCI can regulate student conduct in the manner attempted in the NALSAR case.

Why the Verdict Matters for Law Students

The judgment could have implications beyond NALSAR.

Law students are not yet advocates and, therefore, are not subject to the same professional disciplinary framework that applies after enrolment. The Supreme Court's ruling reinforces the distinction between being a student pursuing a law degree and being a member of the legal profession.

This means that questions of student discipline generally fall within the domain of universities and their applicable regulations, rather than the BCI exercising direct disciplinary control over students. 

The ruling also comes amid a broader debate over the BCI's statutory powers. Earlier reporting on the NALSAR controversy had questioned whether the BCI could legally prevent qualified law graduates from being enrolled as advocates on grounds unrelated to professional eligibility. 

NALSAR Controversy Was About More Than Enrolment

The dispute had quickly grown beyond the question of whether the NALSAR students could participate in a campaign concerning their convocation.

For the students, the controversy touched on freedom of expression, institutional autonomy and the role of future lawyers in engaging with constitutional issues.

For the BCI, the episode initially involved concerns over conduct and the professional consequences that could potentially follow from it.

But the Supreme Court has now drawn a clear legal boundary: the BCI cannot use its statutory authority over the legal profession as a general power to regulate students before they become advocates.

What Happens Next?

The immediate legal consequence is that the two BCI notifications challenged in the NALSAR matter have been set aside.

The judgment also clarifies that universities remain responsible for dealing with student conduct under their own rules.

The NALSAR controversy, which began with a dispute over a convocation invitation and briefly escalated into a nationwide debate over the BCI's powers, has therefore resulted in a larger ruling on the limits of professional regulatory authority.

For thousands of law students across India, the verdict could prove significant: a law degree may be the path to entering the legal profession, but students do not automatically come under the BCI's disciplinary jurisdiction before they become advocates.

Sources: NDTV, The New Indian Express, The Indian Express, India Today, Times of India