The story so far: On 13 August, Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra issued a direction to all State Bar Councils not to enrol any NALSAR (National Academy of Legal Studies and Research) 2026 graduate until further orders. The direction came amid an inquiry into a campaign by some students opposing Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant ’s participation in NALSAR’s convocation. The Chairman sought a factual report from NALSAR identifying those who initiated, organised, coordinated or mobilised the campaign.
What have courts said on BCI’s powers over enrolment?
“A student of Law, having no regard or respect for the highest Judicial Office of the country, is not expected to be a responsible or sensible advocate, teacher or a judge. “No blanket restrictions can be imposed by the BCI. “The conduct of a person has nothing to do with his eligibility to be enrolled as an advocate. Shenoy. Mr. Pre-enrolment conduct may become relevant where it attracts a statutory disqualification or otherwise legally affects eligibility, but mere expression of an opinion or peaceful protest cannot by itself justify denial of enrolment. Thus it is the State Bar Council which alone must decide on the question of enrolment of an applicant on its roll. Even the so called inquiry have been withdrawn. So no further action against them is possible. Kumar.
Section 6(1)(a) entrusts the State Bar Councils with admitting persons as advocates on their rolls. Section 24 of the Advocates Act sets out the qualifications for admission to a State roll, while Section 24A provides for certain disqualifications for enrolment. Sections 25 and 26 deal with the authority and procedure for admission as an advocate, while Section 26A empowers a State Bar Council to remove a name from its roll. However, while doing so it provided for basic substantive matters, e.g., eligibility for entry into the profession (Section 24) disqualification for enrolment (Section 24A), authority entitled to grant admission (Sections 25 and 26), the authority which can remove any name from the roll (Section 26A), etc., and placed them within the domain of a State Bar Council. “With the blanket restriction now withdrawn, NALSAR’s 2026 graduates are presently entitled to seek enrolment in the ordinary course.
The Bar Council can only regulate the conduct of advocates, which means that they have to be enrolled with any of the bar councils.” said Mr. Because it must have realised that matter pertaining to the profession are best left to informed bodies comprising members of the said profession, in the judgment, the court observed that, “It seems Parliament, while enacting the Act, created agencies at the State level as well as at the Central level in the form of State Bar Council of India and invested them with rule making powers on diverse matters touching the legal profession, presumably.
Such persons shall always be a liability on the profession…Our experience is that such people are always indulged in strikes and boycotts and tarnish the image of the Legal Profession.” the letter said. Every application has to be dealt with independently and if they meet the statutory requirements, they are entitled to be enrolled,” said advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy, member of Bar Council of Kerala. He also said the BCI had no authority to direct NALSAR to conduct an inquiry into students’ conduct, arguing that neither the BCI nor State Bar Councils could initiate disciplinary action against students before they were enrolled as advocates. Kumar said that at the most, the BCI may inquire into the conduct of individual students, but collective punishment cannot ordinarily be imposed on an entire batch for the alleged acts of a few. To debar a law graduate from enrolment, there should be some pre-existing disqualification as provided in the Advocates Act and Rules governing enrolment.” said Mr.
