The BCI proceedings had arisen in the backdrop of concerns surrounding developments at NALSAR and the proposed participation of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as the chief guest at the university's 2026 convocation.

The Supreme Court today pulled up the Bar Council of India over its decision to initiate proceedings against the 2026 batch of NALSAR NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad and said that it lacks the statutory competence to look into the conduct of law students before their enrollment as an advocate

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana today took up a petition concerning BCI's withdrawn decision to bar enrollment of NALSAR Hyderabad's 2026 batch students over their campaign against the CJI.

"Such power is vested in the university or educational institution in which the students are enrolled. The Bar Council of India may prescribe and enforce standards of legal education in accordance with the statutory provisions and applicable regulations. It cannot, however, take disciplinary action against a law student," the CJI said.

CJI Kant further remarked that BCI can exercise its powers over an advocate. "As far as the conduct of law students is concerned, the Bar Council of India has neither jurisdiction nor statutory competence. That falls exclusively within the domain of the educational institution or university. There cannot be any dispute about that. After a student graduates and registers himself or herself as an advocate, the Bar Council comes into the picture. It is then the statutory authority responsible for regulating advocates. But none of these students had enrolled as advocates," CJI observed.

Justice Bagchi, adding to the CJI's views, said, "The Bar Council can certainly examine, at the stage of enrolment, whether the conditions precedent for enrolment have been satisfied. But whether the student should be permitted to continue pursuing legal education is for the university to decide. The Bar Council cannot impose a caveat in advance that the student will not be enrolled as an advocate upon graduation."

Court accordingly held that the communication dated August 13, 2026, and all subsequent modified communications of the BCI have been issued without jurisdiction.

Earlier this month, as the plea was mentioned before CJI Surya Kant led bench by Senior Advocate K Parameshwar who stated that BCI has no business of doing this, CJI had said, "This is absolutely uncalled for..It a dialogue between me and students..Who are they to raise an issue..In my student days I was actively involved in student activities..Assuming that they are wrong...they have a right to protest..BCI does not have any business.."

While ordering that no action be taken against the faculty or students of NALSAR, CJI added, "In young days somebody makes a wrong statement that doesn’t mean they don’t have right to protest. Please tell all the students to get enrolled, join Supreme Court bar, we will empanel them for legal aid courses."

Noting that the impugned Circular had been withdrawn, the order added, "Pending circular has been withdrawn. Be that as it may let counter affidavit be filed within 2 weeks. No punitive action to be taken against students of NALSAR in respect of the incidents mentioned in the subject letters."

The Bar Council of India (BCI) had decided to close proceedings against the 2026 batch of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, after considering representations from Senior Advocates, members of the Bar, law students and public-spirited citizens. The Council concluded that the students of the 2026 batch had no role in any disturbance or movement and decided that no further action would be taken against them.

The proceedings had arisen in the backdrop of concerns surrounding developments at NALSAR and the proposed participation of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as the chief guest at the university's 2026 convocation. The issue had attracted representations and discussions concerning the conduct and participation of students in the events surrounding the controversy. After considering the material placed before it and the representations received from various stakeholders, the BCI found no basis to proceed against the 2026 batch. The Council has accordingly brought the proceedings to a close.

BCI also advised the students that they were free to express their opinions and views, while emphasising that such expression should remain within the bounds of institutional decorum and discipline. At the same time, the Council stressed the significance of the office of the Chief Justice of India, observing that the highest judicial office of the country is a matter of collective pride and should be treated with the requisite respect.

The Bar Council of India (BCI) had withdrawn its earlier direction barring the enrolment of NALSAR University of Law’s 2026 graduates as advocates, saying the “vast majority” of the students were innocent and had not intended to participate in any move to “disrespect” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.

A fresh communication issued on August 13 reads that the Council had reconsidered its earlier order after deliberations with its members. The Council said all NALSAR students graduating in 2026 would now be entitled to enrol with the State Bar Council of their choice.

The development came hours after the BCI had directed all State Bar Councils not to enrol any 2026 law graduate from the Hyderabad-based National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR) until further orders. The earlier direction had followed a controversy over a section of NALSAR students opposing the reported invitation to CJI Surya Kant to attend the university’s forthcoming convocation.

The controversy began after students objected to the proposed participation of CJI Surya Kant at the convocation. Their objection was linked to remarks made by the CJI during Supreme Court proceedings concerning alleged police action against protesters at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar. On July 20, protesters associated with the Cockroach Janta Party had attempted to march towards Parliament, leading to clashes with security personnel.

On July 20, protesters associated with the Cockroach Janta Party had attempted to march towards Parliament, leading to clashes with security personnel. Two days later, a plea concerning alleged police excesses was mentioned before a bench headed by Justice Surya Kant.

During the hearing, counsel referred to alleged police brutality against students and said video evidence was available. The CJI reportedly said, “don’t waste our time and yours” and indicated that the Court did not want to watch videos. The remarks triggered discontent among students at NALSAR. On July 23, students from the graduating batch submitted a representation to the university’s Vice-Chancellor, Registrar and professors, asking them to reconsider the CJI’s proposed participation in the convocation. Reports said around 450 students from different batches subsequently expressed support for the objection.

The students argued that the convocation should reflect NALSAR’s commitment to constitutional rights, access to justice and reasoned engagement with grievances. Their objection was specifically tied to what they viewed as the CJI’s handling of allegations of police brutality against protesters. The BCI, however, viewed the campaign differently. In its earlier order, it directed NALSAR to submit an authenticated report identifying those who had allegedly initiated, organised, coordinated or mobilised the campaign.

Case Title: Mihira Sood and another v. Bar Council of India and others

Hearing Date: September 3, 2026

Bench: CJI Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice Mohana

Tags: