General U.S. NewsSep 3, 2026·3 min read

NALSAR controversy: SC says BCI has no statutory power to regulate law students' conduct, quashes two notifications

Livemint – News

1h ago

Summary

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the Bar Council of India (BCI) and state bar councils do not have statutory authority to regulate the conduct of law students, according to PTI . The court said educational institutions are responsible for taking disciplinary action against students under their respective rules and regulations. The apex court struck down two notifications issued by the BCI in connection with the NALSAR controversy, despite the council withdrawing both orders within hours following widespread criticism. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued the ruling while hearing a dispute stemming from the BCI’s action against students of Hyderabad’s NALSAR University of Law. "The BCI does not have jurisdiction...after someone passes out...once a law graduate gets registered as an advocate, then BCI is statutory authority to regulate conduct. But not of students," Kant stated. The controversy arose after the students objected to the proposed participation of Kant in the university’s convocation ceremony. “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,” it stated. He maintained that the petition therefore remained relevant. When the issue was previously brought before the Supreme Court, CJI Kant strongly objected to the BCI’s intervention, questioning its authority to interfere in what he described as a matter of dialogue between students and himself. During college days, he joined India’s only non-profit student journalism network, where he anchored daily news updates and produced his own weekly show called ‘Data Fix’. He was selected for the YES Foundation Media for Social Change Fellowship in Delhi, the Talking Data to the Fourth Pillar residential workshop, and the VOICE Fellowship in Pune. He holds certificates in COVID-19-verification reporting, data journalism, food & agriculture, tech policy, media literacy and countering misinformation, and tackling election disinformation courses from Thomson Foundation, IndiaSpend, The Dialogue, US Mission in India, and AFP. He can be reached on <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/garvit-bhirani">LinkedIn</a> or on <a href="https://x.com/GarvitBhirani">@garvitbhirani</a> on X Stay updated with the latest Trending , India , World and US news.

From the source

The Supreme Court ruled that the Bar Council of India and state bar councils lack authority to discipline law students, stating that educational institutions are responsible for such actions based on their own rules.

Read the full article

Published by Livemint – News on livemint.com

Open on livemint.com ↗

More in General U.S. News

General U.S. News1h ago

A shiny $50 tumbler has entered the world of trendy water bottles. Meet Frank Green.

An assortment of Frank Green water bottles. Frank Green If there's one thing American shoppers love, it's reusable water bottles in fun colors and prints. Frank Green, an Australian drinkware brand, is now catching the attention of US shoppers. The brand's shiny bottles are starting to stand out in a sea of Stanley cups and Owalas. This summer, Morgan Symone was ready to break up with Stanley. Then Frank Green came along. We're talking, of course, about water bottle brands . "I had a Stanley for a while, but she was always leaking, and I'm not a person who will put a charm [cover] on the straw," Symone, a 27-year-old from Los Angeles, told Business Insider. "I wanted to pivot to something new and fresh." The recent master's graduate and marketing professional started researching and found the Australian company Frank Green online. She was so intrigued by the brand that she told her friend about it at lunch the next day.

businessinsider.com Read ↗

General U.S. News1h ago

Data centers can’t win on Earth. How about in space?

What Big Tech’s sci-fi dream reveals about the infrastructure America actually needs. During a tense vote on a data center being built in her drought-stricken Arizona district last summer, Tucson City Councilmember Nikki Lee made an unlikely pitch: “We’re going to get a little out-of-this-world for a second, so just bear with me.” Like many of her constituents, Lee did not want Project Blue, a sprawling 290-acre data center, gobbling up an ounce of her local drinking water. “We need to put data centers where they belong,” she said, and “we don’t think data centers belong in the desert.” President Donald Trump’s recent bluster aside, it’s possible that the only thing as bipartisan as loving Dolly Parton is hating data centers, whose construction has become so controversial , so costly , and so backlogged here on Earth that companies like Google , Meta , and of course, SpaceX , are actively flirting with the idea of flinging them into orbit instead. Soon after the Tucson City Council rejected Project Blue’s attempt to connect to city utilities, Amazon Web Services, the secretive intended beneficiary , pulled out of the project, and another Jeff Bezos company, Blue Origin, filed a plan with regulators for tens of thousands of possible new data centers, this time, destined for orbit . Sure, launching a hyperscale AI data center into space is still unprecedented engineering-wise, carries an unfathomably large price tag, could engender its own severe environmental risks, and may or may not draw unwelcome attention from the hunters among the stars . But for AI companies, such trade-offs might still be preferable to the terrestrial roadblocks , among them an explosive populist backlash and a 12-year wait to connect to the power grid. SpaceX’s gargantuan initial public offering earlier this summer was predicated on the idea that it would launch a thus-far-unrealized fleet of orbital data centers to fuel much of the AI economy. The company claims that by the end of this decade, possibly as early as 2028, it will have successfully assembled an AI data center in orbit, with plans to eventually harvest a staggering 100 gigawatts of new solar energy for AI annually, equivalent to one-fifth of all US electricity consumption last year. (As always, that’s a very iffy promise .) And Google, which has its own plan to deploy dozens of space-based data centers, released a study last December positing that as launch costs go down, they could become cost-competitive with terrestrial data centers within the next decade. Experts tell me that it’s no longer a question of if space-based data centers could be technically feasible, but rather when they’ll be ready to launch, and perhaps more importantly, whether the math of using them to power something like AI will make much financial sense anytime soon. As of now, building a one-gigawatt data center in space would cost about $51.5 billion, according to an analysis by aerospace engineer Andrew McCalip , compared with $16 billion for one on land. “They’re not breaking any rules of physics. Yes, there are going to be engineering challenges, but they are all solvable with enough time and money,” said Jason Aspiotis, a leading space systems engineer who now leads an orbital data center startup. “The gray area is, well, what about the economics?” But even if this astronomically kooky plan does take off, it may not change much for those of us left on terra firma: Our energy bills will remain high , even if data centers aren’t there to drive them up.

vox.com Read ↗

General U.S. News2h ago

The signal Congress sent by dismissing Konda Surekha from Telangana Cabinet

Subscribed with another email? Surekha was given considerable latitude despite a series of controversies that periodically embarrassed the government and the Congress. The decision to finally recommend her removal suggests that the leadership felt the political cost of allowing the conduct to continue had become greater than the embarrassment of dropping her. What makes the decision particularly significant is that Congress governments in recent times have generally avoided taking such a harsh step against their own senior colleagues. But his statements were largely interpreted in the context of the political understanding under which he had returned to Congress from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Surekha’s silence on those remarks was perceived within the Congress as tacit approval rather than an attempt to distance herself from them. But the All India Congress Committee (AICC) eventually appeared unwilling to make another concession. The Congress response appears to have been politically calculated. Therefore, the removal of a Cabinet member cannot be seen simply as a personal decision of Mr. It represents a larger Congress leadership decision on how far individual Ministers can go in publicly challenging the government and party leadership.

thehindu.com Read ↗