The Supreme Court on Thursday held that the Bar Council of India (BCI) has no jurisdiction or statutory authority to take disciplinary action against law students for their conduct before they are enrolled as advocates.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana made the observation while hearing a petition concerning the BCI's now-withdrawn decision to bar the enrolment of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad's 2026 batch students following their campaign against the CJI.

The Court held that the Advocates Act, 1961, under which the BCI has been constituted, does not confer any express or implied power on the statutory body to take disciplinary action against students pursuing legal education.

"Such power is vested in the university or educational institution in which the students are enrolled," the Court said.

The Bench clarified that the BCI can prescribe and enforce standards of legal education in accordance with the law and applicable regulations, but it cannot take disciplinary action against a law student.

CJI Surya Kant observed that the BCI's regulatory powers over an individual come into play only after the person graduates and enrols as 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," the CJI said.

He added that once a student graduates and registers as an advocate, the BCI becomes the statutory authority responsible for regulating their professional conduct. However, none of the NALSAR students involved in the controversy had enrolled as advocates at the time of the BCI's action.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi also observed that the university is responsible for deciding whether a student should be allowed to continue pursuing legal education, even in cases involving allegations of serious misconduct.

"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," Justice Bagchi said.

He further clarified that the BCI cannot impose a pre-emptive condition that a student would not be enrolled as an advocate after graduation.

Since the BCI had already withdrawn its circulars concerning the NALSAR students, the Supreme Court closed the proceedings. However, it declared that the communication issued by the BCI on August 13, 2026, and all subsequent modified communications were issued without jurisdiction.

The Court also made absolute its earlier direction restraining the BCI from taking punitive action against NALSAR, its students, faculty members or any other national law university.

The controversy began after NALSAR students submitted a representation to the university opposing the invitation extended to CJI Surya Kant to attend their convocation as chief guest. The students raised concerns over what they described as the CJI's alleged inaction concerning claims of police brutality during recent protests at Jantar Mantar.

The students said they were uncomfortable receiving their degrees from a dignitary whose recent public conduct, according to them, appeared dismissive of allegations of police brutality against protesting citizens.

The representation referred to an incident on July 22, when a lawyer appearing before a Bench headed by the CJI sought an urgent hearing concerning the alleged police action. According to the students, the CJI told the counsel not to waste the Court's time. They further claimed that when the lawyer offered to show video evidence of the alleged police action, the Bench declined to view it.

Around 70 students from the outgoing 2026 batch initially signed the representation, while approximately 380 students from the 2027 to 2031 batches later extended their support.

Following the campaign, the BCI issued a circular barring the entire 2026 batch from being enrolled as advocates. The circular also alleged that certain academic staff members had been involved in misleading and instigating students and called for an inquiry into the matter.

Within hours, the BCI issued another circular reversing its decision to halt the students' enrolment, although it retained the proposal to conduct an inquiry into those allegedly involved in initiating and organising the campaign. The BCI also sought an inquiry report from NALSAR.

NALSAR Vice-Chancellor Professor Srikrishna Deva Rao subsequently stated that the university would first examine whether such an inquiry was permissible under its governing regulations.

Following criticism of the BCI's actions, the Council eventually closed the proceedings and informed NALSAR that no further action was required.

During Thursday's hearing, Senior Advocate K Parameshwar, appearing for the petitioners, urged the Supreme Court to examine the circumstances in which the BCI circulars were issued. He questioned whether any meeting had been held before the decision was taken and sought clarity on who had authorised the action and under which provision of law.

"This is a question of freedom of speech and expression in a university. It is not about just one student. It is about banning freedom of speech and expression across an entire university," he submitted.

BCI Chairman and Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra responded that the decision had already been withdrawn and the proceedings had been closed.

CJI Surya Kant observed that the withdrawal of the circulars indicated that the BCI had realised its mistake.

"We expect everyone to act responsibly. There is no doubt that the orders were withdrawn. That means there must have been some realisation that a mistake, if not a blunder, had been committed, and it was accordingly rectified," the CJI said.

The petitioners then sought a clear declaration that the BCI has no statutory authority to regulate the conduct of law students. The Court agreed to issue the clarification, while also making it clear that students' freedom of expression is not unlimited.

"Of course, students have freedom, but it cannot be unbridled freedom," CJI Surya Kant observed.

With the ruling, the Supreme Court has clarified that disciplinary control over law students rests with their respective universities or educational institutions, while the BCI's statutory regulatory role begins once a person is enrolled as an advocate.