THE SUPREME Court bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant in its order on September 3, made a categorical observation that Bar Council of India or State Bar Councils have no power or authority whatsoever under the Advocates Act, 1961, to exercise any disciplinary action against law students before the completion of their studies and registration as lawyers. It unequivocally stated the legal and constitutional position that the matters concerning acts of commission and omission of students pursuing law in universities or any educational institution fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the authorities mandated to run such institutions.
The SC bench did so while hearing a petition of NALSAR students against BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra's now-withdrawn order that the entire 2026 batch of students NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, should not be enrolled with State Bar Councils as lawyers and action should be taken against the erring students.
Illegal Order of Mishra
He issued that order and justified it on the ground that on July 23 a group of graduating students from the NALSAR had the temerity to write to their university administration not to invite justice Surya Kant for the convocation citing their grave concerns over his handling of a plea related to alleged police brutalities against protesters at Jantar Mantar and his stern refusal even to watch video clips capturing peaceful protestors helplessly confronting the coercive action taken by security forces against them.
Mature Defence of NALSAR Students
It is instructive to recall that the NALSAR students in their well reasoned appeal to the authorities very persuasively wrote, “As students of law, our concern is narrower and more specific to us as a graduating batch. A convocation is meant to be a moment where the University's own values, including a commitment to constitutional rights, access to justice, and reasoned engagement with grievances, are visibly reflected in the choices it makes."
“We feel,” they very poignantly wrote, “that receiving our degrees from a dignitary whose recent public conduct, as reported, appears dismissive of serious allegations of police brutality against protesting citizens sits uncomfortably with what we have been taught to value during our time at NALSAR".
Students In Tune With Gandhi’s Vision of Swaraj
BCI Chairman, Manan Mishra could not stomach such mature and profound observations and committed the egregious violation of breaching Advocates Act to stifle the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and even engage in the act of dissenting with a high constitutional authority.
CJI Surya Kant himself outrightly disapproved of Mishra’s illegal action and sharply reacted by saying, “It’s a dialogue between students and me. Who are they (BCI) to unnecessarily raise an issue?”
It is striking that the students passing out from NALSAR were confronting the spectre of suppression of their freedom of speech three weeks before the celebrations of our country’s 80th independence day. Almost two years before launching of the historic Quit India movement Mahatma Gandhi famously wrote on September 29, 1940, “Freedom of speech and pen is the foundation of Swaraj. If the foundation-stone is in danger, you have to exert the whole of your might in order to defend that single stone.”
What the students of NALSAR did in petitioning the Supreme Court against the arbitrary and whimsical ban imposed by BCI Chairman, Manan Mishra, on passing out law students was to defend the foundation of Swaraj defined by Gandhi in terms of freedom of speech and freedom of pen. Eventually Mishra tendered an unqualified apology to the students and unconditionally withdrew the notification he had issued against the NALSAR students.
Media Indictment of Mishra
Coincidentally on independence day on August 15, Indian Express wrote an editorial titled “Bar Council breaks the law to crawl, its chief must go.” It is extremely salutary to note that even before the SC on September, 3rd sharply observed that BCI Chief Mishra has no power vested with him to take disciplinary action against students, the media editorially passed highly adverse comments on his outrageous action. The Indian Express editorial noted that “The Bar Council of India has rolled back its illegal, arbitrary and overreaching direction to State Bar Councils to not enrol 2026 graduates of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad.” “But that cannot,” it firmly stated, “...should not, be the end of the matter.” It proceeded to add with emphasis, “It is necessary to rewind and pause on the now-withdrawn decision — to see how it combines a repressive reading of citizens’ fundamental rights with an overblown understanding of the restrictions that can be imposed on them; how the BCI arrogates to itself powers that are not, by law, vested in it; how the institutional failure of the Bar to hold up its end undermines the justice delivery system.”
“The attempt,” it sharply remarked, “to silence budding advocates is especially jarring in the aftermath of the students’ protests — it shows an institution that has not learnt any lessons from the movement on the street.”
While signalling that Manan Mishra’s repugnant conduct is unbecoming of the occupant of the office of BCI Chairman threatening both the bar and bench the editorial was unsparing in asking him to quit the office. It observed “The CJI’s rebuke isn’t enough. BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra has embarrassed himself and undermined the institution he leads. The attempt, on his watch, to intimidate tomorrow’s bar and, indeed, the bench, to shrink the spirit of tomorrow’s court, calls for a course correction that can only begin with his exit. If the Bar Council needs to do justice to its mandate, Mishra must go.”
SC’s Preventive Measure
The aforementioned SC order, as reported in the media, very appropriately stated that the boundary of the BCI has to be drawn so that it acts within the limits set by Advocates Act to, in its words, “safeguard university space and students' right to freely express dissent against future attempts to breach.”
Such observations of the apex court constitute preventive measures for BCI not to trample upon the constitutionally enshrined rights of students but also the precious lessons of law and jurisprudence they have been asked to value during their time in NALSAR. It also aims at putting an end to, as per the arguments of petitioners, that Mishra’s action created the chilling effect on the freedom of speech and the freedom of association among students.
Violation of Constitution and Constitutional Morality
He as BCI chief apart from breaching the Advocates Act of 1961 has flagrantly violated the Constitution and more importantly the doctrine of constitutional morality which Ambedkar flagged in 1948 in the Constituent Assembly and appealed for its comprehensive cultivation by all concerned so that the Constitution could be implemented in its letter and spirit. It is indeed tragic that Mishra being an incumbent of the office of the Chairman of BCI has committed such transgressions in complete disregard of its perilous effects not just on students but on the Constitution for saving of which people are in the forefront across the country.
Mishra Only pro tem BCI Chairman
In this context it is worthwhile to record here the fact that Manan Mishra is only a pro tem BCI Chairman. It was revealed when the bench of the Supreme Court comprising the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana was hearing the writ petition filed by Advocate Yogamaya M.G. challenging the prolonged tenure of Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra as BCI Chief even after the completion of his tenure as per the rules of the Bar Council of India. Additionally , it also challenged the April 2025 notification issued by the BCI extending Mishra’s term till 2030 when the tenure as per the rules extends to two years. The Court reminded BCI Chairman Mishra that he was only a ‘Pro-Tem Chairman and not a democratically elected office bearer.’ Therefore, it remarked that he can only manage the day to day routine affairs of the BCI. The Court also issued directions to expedite the notification of new State Bar Councils to ensure the time-bound election of the representatives of the BCI.
As per the official records of the Bar Council of India, Mishra assumed his role as the chairman of the Bar Council of India in the year 2014 which makes him its longest serving Chairman lasting nearly 12 years.
All such facts bring out Mishra’s callous disregard for institutional integrity and his lack of commitment to the principles and norms governing the statutory office he holds. Yet again he pays scant regard for constitutional morality, one of the mandates of which is to respect the institutions of democracy and provide scope for exercise of legitimate rights to interrogate the office bearers breaching those norms in a calculated manner. With such sharp indictments from the apex court for his acts of commission and omission Manan Mishra should at least vaccate the office he holds without any further delay.