WebinarsNew
Deep DiveNew
Explore Business Standard
Bar Council Of India
The Supreme Court on Thursday held that the Bar Council of India (BCI) and state bar councils have no statutory power to regulate the conduct of law students, saying it was for educational institutions to take action against students in accordance with their own regulatory norms. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana passed the order while dealing with the 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's 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 the students of law. "Such a power is preceded by registration of a law graduate as an advocate under the said Act. So far as students are concerned, it is their parent ...
The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the Bar Council of India (BCI) has to take any policy decision in consultation with the Attorney General for India and the Solicitor General. The top court was hearing pleas challenging the legality of Bar Council of India (BCI) chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra's prolonged tenure and seeking his removal from the post. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was hearing the pleas. "Both the Attorney General for India and the Solicitor General for India shall be actively associated with every policy decision taken by the Bar Council of India," the bench said. Mishra was first elected as BCI chairman till 2012. Although Mishra briefly demitted office in 2014, he returned as chairman in November that year and has remained in the post since then, the plea filed by advocate Yogamaya MG said.
Supreme Court judge B V Nagarathna on Saturday lamented that the legal system is bogged down by pendency, delays and rising costs, and asked the bar to change its mindset, rethink its role and speak in a singular voice to sustain the justice dispensation system. Justice Nagarathna, who was speaking at the 13th convocation of National Law University at Delhi, stressed that when a bar council does not earn the respect of its members, it is not a good sign for the legal profession. Bar councils must introspect on their role and importance in upholding professional ethics, morality and professional competence and it is time for members of the bar to introspect on their duties in seeking justice for the distressed litigant and for sustaining democracy in the country, she said. "The lawyers of this country are the torchbearers of the values of our Constitution. Any lapse or errors of the bar will have a deep impact on our political and civic life. Hence, their importance in our society.
Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra on Saturday rejected allegations levelled against him by senior advocate and the bar body's co-chairman, Y R Sadasiva Reddy, saying the charges have "no value" among lawyers and asserting that he is a man of "honesty and integrity". In a letter dated August 22, Reddy called upon Mishra to resign within 15 days and sought a special meeting of the BCI, along with an independent audit of its accounts and the BCI Trust PEARL-First. The letter mentioned Reddy's designation as the bar body's co-chairman. Reddy alleged that the statutory body has drifted away from the standards expected of it under Mishra's leadership. In an exclusive interview to PTI, Mishra, however claimed that Reddy is no longer a member of the BCI as he did not contest the last bar council polls in his home state, Karnataka. He said Reddy was a BCI member for eight years but did not raise such complaints during that time. "Lawyers know me and know that I am a
Bar Council of India (BCI) chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra has apologised to law students after facing criticism over a now-withdrawn order to state bar councils not to enrol any of the current batch of graduating NALSAR students as advocates. In a statement issued on Independence Day, Mishra said recent developments had caused concern among students and expressed regret if any of his words or communications had hurt their feelings. "If anything connected with the present controversy, any of my words, or letter, has hurt the feelings of our law students, I sincerely regret and apologise for the same. There should be no hesitation in saying so. An expression of regret is not a matter of prestige or ego. It is simply an acknowledgement that the feelings and concerns of our students matter," the statement said. The controversy began after a section of students of NALSAR University of Law wrote to the vice chancellor, registrar and professors of the institution, opposing any proposal to
The Supreme Court on Friday took a stern view of a Bar Council of India (BCI) circular directing all state bar councils not to enrol any 2026 batch graduate of NALSAR University of Law as advocates, saying students have a right to protest. A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant said the BCI has nothing to do in the matter as it was a dialogue between him and the students. "They (students) have a right to protest. Who can stop them," the CJI, who was heading a bench which also comprised Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, said. "It's a dialogue between me and students. Who are they (BCI) to interfere," the CJI said. The observations came after a plea challenging the BCI circular was mentioned for urgent listing. The bench issued notice to the BCI seeking its response on the plea and directed that no punitive action be taken against the students or faculty of the NALSAR at the instance of the BCI or any other state bar councils. The counsel appearing for the BCI told the ben
The Bar Council of India (BCI) Thursday directed all state bar councils not to enrol any 2026 graduate of NALSAR University of Law as advocate until further orders but reversed this order within hours after an uproar on social media. In the first statement, BCI chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra said it was examining allegations regarding a campaign against Chief Justice of India Surya Kant's participation in the university's convocation and had sought a report identifying those responsible. The apex statutory body for lawyers said a final decision in the matter would be taken on August 19 after considering the material placed before it. The BCI then modified its decision after the uproar on social media and allowed state bar councils to enrol 2026 graduates of NALSAR University of Law as advocates. The new notification modified the earlier order, saying the "vast majority" of the students were innocent and should not be made to suffer for the alleged misconduct of a few. In the fresh
The Bar Council of India (BCI) has moved the Supreme Court seeking approval for a merit-based "co-option" mechanism to ensure 30 per cent women's representation in state bar councils. The BCI, the apex bar body, has proposed to fill a 10-per cent co-option quota by selecting women candidates who have secured the highest number of votes among those not elected, rather than through subjective appointments. The proposal aims to complement the 20 per cent seats reserved for women through direct election, bringing the total representation to the 30-per cent mandate previously set by the apex court. BCI chairperson and senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, in a statement, said the bar body has considered the submissions made by stakeholders before the apex court-appointed High Powered Election Supervisory Committee on the co-option of women members in state bar councils. "This issue concerns not merely filling seats, but the larger institutional objective, which is ensuring that women ...
The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the counting of votes for the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) elections following tampering allegations and asked the Delhi High Court to conduct day-to-hearing on the pleas. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order while hearing a plea filed by Birender Sangwan and others. The CJI transferred the matter to a division bench of the high court, urging the Chief Justice to constitute a special bench to hear the dispute on a day-to-day basis. "Learned counsels for the parties have fairly agreed that since effective adjudication of controversy might require summoning of original records, such as ballot papers etc., it would be apt, if matter is entrusted to a division bench of the Delhi High Court. "Consequently, we transfer these petitions to the Delhi High Court with a request to the Chief Justice to list the same before a special bench within this week," the bench ordered. The bench said till then the high