"Supreme Court Limits Bar Council of India's Jurisdiction Over Law Students"
Ultra vires
Latin for 'beyond the powers'; an act by a statutory body that exceeds its legally granted authority is void.
Chilling effect
indirect suppression of constitutional rights when a threat of future consequences deters present exercise of those rights.
The Advocates Act, 1961 is the central legislation governing the legal profession in India. It created the Bar Council of India (BCI) as the apex statutory body for the profession. Section 7 of the Act lists the BCI's functions. These include laying down standards of professional conduct, promoting legal education, and supervising State Bar Councils. Sections 24 and 24A define who is eligible for enrolment as an advocate and who may be disqualified. Parliament has set these conditions exhaustively. The BCI has no residual power to add new disqualifications by executive instruction.
The constitutional backdrop is equally important. Article 19(1)(a) guarantees every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression. Article 19(1)(b) protects the right to assemble peaceably. These rights are not absolute. Article 19(2) allows the State to impose reasonable restrictions on eight specific grounds: sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, and incitement to an offence. Disagreement with a public official's conduct does not fall within any of these eight grounds. The Supreme Court has consistently held that restrictions must be narrowly tailored to the specific ground invoked, as established in Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950) and reinforced in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015).
The BCI's mandate under the Advocates Act, 1961 is profession-facing, not student-facing. Its disciplinary powers under Sections 35 and 36 apply only to enrolled advocates. A law student, however close to graduation, is not yet an advocate. The university, not the BCI, is the competent authority over student conduct. This is not a gap in the law; it is a deliberate boundary Parliament drew when it enacted the statute.
The concept of ultra vires is central here. A statutory body can only exercise powers that Parliament has expressly granted or that are necessarily implied by the statute's purpose. When a body acts beyond those powers, its action is void. The BCI's attempt to direct universities to initiate inquiries against students, and to instruct State Bar Councils to block enrolment, was ultra vires on both counts. …
With reference to India, consider the following statements:
1.Government law officers and legal firms are recognised as advocates, but corporate lawyers and patent attorneys are excluded from recognition as advocates.
2.Bar Councils have the power to lay down the rules relating to legal education and recognition of law colleges.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
A legislation which confers on the executive or administrative authority an unguided and uncontrolled discretionary power in the matter of application of law violates which one of the following Articles of the Constitution of India?
Which of the following are regarded as the main features of the "Rule of Law" ?
1.Limitation of powers
2.Equality before law
3.People's responsibility to the Government
4.Liberty and civil rights
Select the correct answer using the code given below :
Do you think that the Constitution of India does not accept the principle of strict separation of powers rather it is based on the principle of 'checks and balance'? Explain.
With reference to the Bar Council of India (BCI) and its powers under the Advocates Act, 1961, consider the following statements:
1.The BCI can lay down standards of professional conduct for enrolled advocates.
2.The BCI has the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against law students who have not yet enrolled as advocates.
3.The BCI can recognise law colleges and lay down rules relating to legal education.
4.State Bar Councils can block the enrolment of a law graduate on grounds not specified in Sections 24 and 24A of the Advocates Act, 1961.
How many of the above statements are correct?
Consider the following pairs:
Statutory provision — Scope of application
1.Section 35, Advocates Act, 1961 — Disciplinary proceedings against enrolled advocates by the BCI
2.Section 24, Advocates Act, 1961 — Eligibility conditions for enrolment as an advocate
3.Article 19(2), Constitution of India — Eight grounds for imposing reasonable restrictions on free speech
4.Section 7, Advocates Act, 1961 — Functions of the Bar Council of India
How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?
With reference to Article 19 of the Constitution of India, consider the following statements:
1.Article 19(1)(a) guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression to every person, including non-citizens.
2.Article 19(2) permits the State to restrict free speech on exactly eight enumerated grounds.
3.Disagreement with the conduct of a constitutional office-holder does not fall within any of the eight grounds listed in Article 19(2).
4.The Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India held that speech can be curtailed when it causes offence or inconvenience to an authority.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
The Supreme Court issued a declaratory order clarifying that the Bar Council of India has no disciplinary jurisdiction over law students, even though the BCI had already withdrawn the letters that triggered the petition. Which of the following best explains the constitutional rationale for issuing such an order despite the withdrawal?
The doctrine that a statutory body can only exercise powers expressly granted or necessarily implied by the enabling statute, and that any action beyond those powers is void, is best described as which of the following?
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account