The Supreme Court ruled that the Bar Council of India has no statutory authority to regulate the conduct of law students or exercise disciplinary jurisdiction over them, settling the NALSAR controversy.

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Joymalya Bagchi, and V Mohana quashed BCI communications and notifications targeting protesting students and the 2026 graduating batch, making interim protection orders absolute. The court clarified that the Advocates Act, 1961, grants disciplinary powers exclusively over enrolled advocates, not individuals currently pursuing an LLB.

Disciplinary control over enrolled students rests solely with their respective universities under internal institutional bylaws. The dispute stemmed from a BCI backlash against NALSAR University of Law students who protested a convocation guest. Although the BCI withdrew its circulars following widespread criticism, the apex court delivered this definitive verdict to establish clear jurisdictional boundaries between statutory bodies and academic institutions.