Self-Regulation Has A Price Tag: Supreme Court Orders Bar Council To Audit Its Own Disciplinary System

The Supreme Court quashed advocate Ajay Vijh's inclusion in the Indian Banks' Association's Caution List, ruling that banks cannot unilaterally declare lawyers professionally negligent — that power lies exclusively with Bar Councils under the Advocates Act, 1961. Using the case, the Court directed the Bar Council of India to conduct a full performance audit of disciplinary mechanisms at both the BCI and State Bar Council level, citing delays and inconsistent practices. It also asked the BCI to institutionalise Continuing Legal Education and explore a National Legal Academy for lawyers. The Court's message: the Bar's self-regulatory privilege must be matched by demonstrable transparency and accountability. The matter is listed next on August 31, 2026.

Read full article

Self-Regulation Has A Price Tag: Supreme Court Orders Bar Council To Audit Its Own Disciplinary System

Bank's Caution List Struck Down

The Supreme Court has set aside advocate Ajay Vijh's inclusion in the Indian Banks' Association's “Caution List,” ruling that banks cannot brand a lawyer professionally negligent or incompetent outside the disciplinary process laid down under the Advocates Act, 1961. A bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe held that Canara Bank's move to flag Vijh over a 2015 property title opinion, and circulate his name to other banks, encroached on turf that belongs exclusively to the Bar Councils.

The Court accepted that banks are free to drop an empanelled lawyer whose work falls short, but drew a firm line at public blacklisting. Allowing banking bodies to sit in judgment on a lawyer's competence, the bench said, would undermine the statutory scheme that vests disciplinary control in the profession's own peer-review institutions.

Audit Ordered For The Watchdogs

Having restored the Bar's exclusive jurisdiction over professional misconduct, the Court turned that same lens on the Bar Councils themselves. It directed the Bar Council of India to carry out a comprehensive performance audit of disciplinary mechanisms across the BCI and the State Bar Councils, citing persistent complaints of pendency, procedural delay and a lack of uniform practice.

The bench was clear that the exercise is diagnostic, not punitive: the goal is to map systemic strengths and weaknesses and drive evidence-based reform, while protecting fairness and the Bar's independence. A committee of senior and junior advocates and subject experts is to be constituted, with the BCI required to file an affidavit on the corrective steps it proposes to take.

Training And A National Legal Academy

The judgment also pushes the BCI to institutionalise Continuing Legal Education for advocates and to examine setting up a National Legal Academy, modelled on the National Judicial Academy that trains judges, to provide structured learning after enrolment. The Court framed this alongside the audit as part of a single package: a profession that claims constitutional privilege must also demonstrate institutional upkeep.

The matter returns to the Supreme Court on August 31, 2026, when the BCI must report progress on both the audit and the Academy proposal.

Why It Matters

The ruling closes a workaround that had let financial institutions run an informal, extra-legal disciplinary track against lawyers. But by pairing that relief with a mandate for self-scrutiny, the Court has put the Bar Councils on notice: exclusive jurisdiction over advocate discipline comes bundled with an obligation to show that the machinery actually works.