The Bar Council of India (BCI) and state Bar councils have no statutory power to regulate the conduct of law students as it is for educational institutions to take action against them in accordance with their own regulatory norms, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant passed the order while dealing with a controversy arising out of the BCI’s action against students of Hyderabad’s NALSAR University of Law over their objections to the CJI’s proposed participation in the university convocation.“We are of the opinion that the Advocates Act, 1961, whereunder the BCI has been statutorily created, does not confer any express or implied power upon the BCI or any state Bar council to take any disciplinary action against law students.“Such a power is preceded by the registration of a law graduate as an advocate under the said Act. So far as students are concerned, it is their parent institution or the authority prescribed under the regulations/bylaws of such institution which alone are competent to take disciplinary action. We declare all communications dated August 13 or subsequent modified communication to be without any authority of law,” said the Bench, which also comprised Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana.It set aside two notifications issued by the BCI in connection with the NALSAR row even though the notifications were withdrawn within hours following public outrage.“The BCI does not have jurisdiction… after someone passes out… once a law graduate gets registered as an advocate, then the BCI is a statutory authority to regulate conduct. But not of students…. It’s a dialogue between students and me. Who are they (BCI) to interfere? This is totally uncalled for,” said the CJI, who had earlier strongly disapproved of the BCI’s intervention.The order came on a petition filed by NALSAR alumni Mihira Sood and Abhishek Tiwari, who had challenged BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra’s August 13 directions to state Bar councils not to enrol NALSAR’s 2026 graduates as advocates until further orders pending an inquiry into the alleged campaign against CJI Kant’s proposed visit to the university. However, Mishra was forced to withdraw the communication within hours of its issuance after public outrage and widespread criticism.“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,” senior advocate K Parameshwar told the Bench on behalf of the law students.Even though the BCI Chairman’s directions were withdrawn, there needed to be an inquiry into the manner in which they were issued and, to that extent, the petition survived, he said. “We want to know the circumstances in which these orders came to be passed and whether meetings were held. This is, after all, a statutory authority responsible for legal education and for regulating the legal profession,” Parameshwar told the Bench.Mishra, who was present in the court, submitted that the letters were withdrawn within an hour of issuance and now the matter should be put to rest. “Everything has already been closed. The (Bar) Council, in its meeting, has said that there is nothing further and that everything has been resolved. The letter was immediately withdrawn,” Mishra said.