‘Who are you to pass this order?’: CJI, Nalsar students grill Bar Council

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Bar Council of India (BCI) to explain the process it adopted before passing resolutions against students of the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR) University, Hyderabad. The query came during a hearing where a bench of the apex court was examining the validity of the BCI's actions.

During the proceedings, the bench, led by the Chief Justice of India, posed a pointed question to the BCI: “Who are you to pass this order?” The same concern was echoed by the students, who have challenged the resolutions. The court sought to know whether the BCI had followed the rules of natural justice and its own regulations before making any adverse remarks against the students.

The bench observed that students have a fundamental right to protest peacefully under Article 19 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. It further noted that no authority, including a regulatory body like the BCI, can prevent students from expressing their views in a lawful manner. “They have a right to protest peacefully, and no one can stop them,” the court stated.

The dispute arose after the BCI passed certain resolutions against NALSAR students, reportedly over their participation in protests. The students approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the BCI acted without jurisdiction and in violation of constitutional safeguards. The court also questioned the BCI's authority to issue such resolutions, emphasising that any regulatory action must be grounded in law and due procedure.

Legal experts note that the BCI, as a statutory body under the Advocates Act, 1961, has the power to regulate legal education and professional conduct. However, this power is not unlimited. It must act within the framework of the Constitution and its own rules. By questioning the BCI's process, the Supreme Court has highlighted the need for accountability and transparency in the exercise of regulatory authority.

The case also underscores the broader principle that rights of students and citizens cannot be curtailed by arbitrary or excessive actions of statutory bodies. The Constitution protects peaceful protest and free speech, and any restriction must be reasonable, proportionate, and backed by law.

The court has now sought a detailed response from the BCI, explaining the manner in which it arrived at the resolutions. The next hearing will examine whether the BCI followed the correct procedure and whether its actions were within its remit. Until then, the court has indicated that no coercive steps should be taken against the students.

Observers say this case could set an important precedent for how regulatory bodies interact with students and the limits of their disciplinary powers. It also reiterates that fundamental rights are not subject to the whims of any authority, however powerful.

The matter has drawn attention from law schools and legal professionals across the country, many of whom are watching to see how the judiciary balances institutional discipline with individual freedoms. The Supreme Court's firm stance in favour of due process is seen as a reminder that all institutions, including those that regulate the legal profession, are answerable to the Constitution.