Mihira Sood & Anr. v. Bar Council of India & Ors. — W.P.(C) No. 1040/2026 | Supreme Court | 3 September 2026
A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana held that the BCI and State Bar Councils do not have statutory authority to take disciplinary action against law students before they are enrolled as advocates.
What Did the Supreme Court Hold?
The Court examined the scope of powers available to the BCI under the Advocates Act, 1961.
It held that the Advocates Act does not confer either an express or implied power upon the BCI or State Bar Councils to take disciplinary action against students pursuing legal education.
According to the Court, disciplinary authority over law students lies with their parent university or educational institution, or the authority prescribed under the institution’s applicable regulations or bye-laws.
The Court further clarified that the BCI’s statutory disciplinary jurisdiction becomes relevant when a law graduate is enrolled as an advocate.
NALSAR Controversy
The ruling arose from the controversy involving students of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad.
Following objections raised by students concerning the proposed participation of the Chief Justice of India in the university’s convocation, the BCI had issued communications concerning the 2026 graduating batch, including directions relating to their enrolment as advocates and an inquiry into the matter.
The BCI subsequently withdrew those communications.
The Supreme Court nevertheless examined the legality of the BCI’s action and declared the communications issued on 13 August 2026 and subsequent modified communications to be without authority of law/jurisdiction.
The Court made it clear that the BCI cannot exercise disciplinary control over a person merely because that person is studying law. The regulatory framework governing advocates operates once the person enters the profession through enrolment.
Conclusion
The central message is clear: the Bar Council regulates the legal profession; it does not possess general disciplinary jurisdiction over law students before their enrolment as advocates. Any disciplinary action against students must ordinarily be taken by the educational institution in accordance with its governing rules and regulations.
