Bar Council Not Earning Members’ Respect Is Not A Good Sign For The Legal Profession: Justice BV Nagarathna
“A Bar Council may possess the power to regulate lawyers, but its real strength lies in the trust of the lawyers it represents. Authority can be imposed by law; respect must be earned through fairness, transparency, independence, and integrity.” — Adv. Tarun Choudhury, Supreme Court Advocate
Introduction
The legal profession in India is passing through a period in which the questions of professional ethics, institutional credibility, independence of the Bar, and accountability of Bar Councils have acquired renewed importance.
Against this backdrop, the observations made by Justice B.V. Nagarathna of the Supreme Court of India at the 13th Convocation of National Law University, Delhi, on August 29, 2026, deserve serious attention from every member of the legal fraternity.
Justice Nagarathna observed that when a Bar Council does not earn the respect of its own members, it is not a good sign for the legal profession. She called upon Bar Councils at both the Central and State levels to introspect about their role in maintaining professional ethics, morality, and professional competence.
These observations are particularly significant because they go beyond the functioning of any individual Bar Council. They raise a larger institutional question:
Can a self-regulatory institution effectively regulate the legal profession if the very professionals whom it regulates have lost confidence in it?
In my view, this is the real constitutional and professional question underlying Justice Nagarathna’s remarks.
The Context: Justice Nagarathna’s Address at NLU Delhi
Justice Nagarathna made the observations while delivering the convocation address at the 13th Convocation of National Law University, Delhi, on August 29, 2026.
Her address was directed primarily towards young law graduates entering the profession, but its message was equally relevant to practising advocates, senior members of the Bar, Bar Councils, and institutions responsible for legal education and professional regulation.
She emphasised that the Bar must rethink its usefulness to litigants, its responsibility towards democracy, and its role in preserving the majesty of courts and the rule of law.
Most importantly, she called upon the Bar Councils—both Central and State—to examine whether they are adequately fulfilling their responsibilities concerning:
- professional ethics;
- morality;
- professional competence;
- independence of the Bar;
- confidence of advocates;
- administration of justice; and
- the larger constitutional role of lawyers.
Her remarks therefore deserve to be understood as a call for institutional introspection rather than merely criticism of an administrative body.
The Core Observation: Respect Cannot Be Commanded
The most striking aspect of Justice Nagarathna’s remarks is the proposition that institutional authority and institutional respect are not necessarily the same thing.
A bar council may possess statutory powers. It may have disciplinary jurisdiction. It may regulate enrollment and professional standards. It may exercise important functions under the Advocates Act, 1961.
But statutory authority alone cannot create institutional legitimacy.
Justice Nagarathna’s observation that a Bar Council failing to earn the respect of its members is “not a good sign” goes to the heart of professional self-regulation.
There is an important distinction here.
| Institutional Authority | Institutional Respect |
|---|---|
| May arise from statutory powers. | Must be earned through institutional conduct. |
| Can compel compliance with legal requirements. | Builds voluntary confidence among members. |
| May include disciplinary and regulatory powers. | Depends upon fairness, transparency, and integrity. |
| Can be imposed by law. | Cannot simply be imposed by law. |
Fear is not respect.
An advocate may comply with a regulatory order because the law requires compliance. But an institution earns genuine respect when members believe that it is:
- fair;
- independent;
- transparent;
- competent;
- accountable;
- representative; and
- committed to the larger interests of the profession.
That distinction should not be lost.
Why the Credibility of Bar Councils Matters
The Bar Council system is not merely an administrative arrangement.
It is an important component of the architecture of the legal profession.
The legal profession is based upon an unusual model of professional self-regulation. Lawyers themselves participate in institutions that regulate entry into the profession, professional conduct, and disciplinary standards.
That arrangement carries an implicit bargain.
The profession receives a significant degree of institutional autonomy, but that autonomy comes with corresponding responsibilities.
If the profession regulates itself, it must demonstrate that it can regulate itself fairly, responsibly, and transparently.
Otherwise, public confidence in self-regulation inevitably suffers.
Justice Nagarathna’s emphasis on professional ethics, morality, and competence is therefore extremely important.
Independence of the Bar Is a Constitutional Necessity
Perhaps the most profound part of Justice Nagarathna’s address concerned the independence of the Bar.
She made it clear that the independence of lawyers is not a personal privilege granted to advocates for their own convenience.
Rather, it exists because a constitutional democracy requires lawyers who are capable of advising, arguing, challenging, and representing clients independently.
As reported from the address, Justice Nagarathna stressed that lawyers must be able to discharge these functions without having to seek permission from the state, the market, or even their clients before performing their professional and constitutional role.
This is a fundamental principle.
A lawyer is often required to do something that is uncomfortable for powerful institutions.
A lawyer may have to:
- challenge governmental action;
- question executive decisions;
- defend an unpopular accused;
- challenge an administrative order;
- protect an individual’s fundamental rights;
- oppose an influential litigant;
- question an established legal position; or
- Ask a constitutional court to reconsider an accepted practice.
For this reason, an independent bar is indispensable to an independent justice system.
The Bar Is Not Merely a Collection of Lawyers
There is another important dimension to Justice Nagarathna’s remarks.
The Bar should not be viewed merely as a collection of individual advocates pursuing individual careers.
The Bar is an institution.
Its collective conduct affects the administration of justice.
When lawyers appear before courts, they are not merely private representatives. They participate in the justice-delivery process.
This is why the traditional expression “officer of the court” carries such significance.
A lawyer owes duties to the client, but the lawyer also owes duties to the court and to the administration of justice.
These obligations can sometimes come into tension.
For example, an advocate cannot knowingly mislead a court merely because doing so may advance the client’s immediate interest.
Similarly, professional loyalty cannot become an excuse for compromising the integrity of judicial proceedings.
The credibility of the profession ultimately depends upon how lawyers handle precisely these difficult situations.
Professional Ethics Cannot Be Reduced to Disciplinary Rules
Justice Nagarathna’s reference to professional ethics, morality, and professional competence is particularly significant.
There is a tendency to think of professional ethics only in terms of disciplinary proceedings.
That is too narrow.
Professional ethics begins much earlier.
It includes:
- honesty with the court;
- confidentiality towards clients;
- avoidance of conflicts of interest;
- professional courtesy;
- proper preparation;
- responsible drafting;
- respect for opposing counsel;
- respect for court staff;
- avoiding unnecessary adjournments;
- not filing frivolous proceedings;
- giving realistic advice to clients; and
- protecting the dignity of the profession.
A bar council cannot create professional ethics merely through disciplinary action.
Ethical culture must become part of the professional identity of lawyers.
That is why Justice Nagarathna’s call for introspection is so important.
The Bar’s Responsibility in Reducing Judicial Pendency
Justice Nagarathna also emphasized the need for the Bar to speak with a collective voice regarding the problems confronting the justice-delivery system, including pendency, delay, increasing costs, and uncertainty.
This is an issue that deserves greater attention.
Judicial delay is not exclusively a judicial problem.
It is a systemic problem involving:
- courts;
- judges;
- lawyers;
- litigants;
- government departments;
- investigating agencies;
- prosecutors;
- administrative authorities; and
- procedural structures.
The Bar, therefore, has a substantial role to play.
An advocate who seeks unnecessary adjournments, repeatedly fails to prepare a matter, files unnecessary applications, or prolongs proceedings contributes to the very problem that the profession frequently criticizes.
The Bar must therefore ask itself a difficult question:
Are we merely demanding faster justice from courts, or are we also willing to change professional practices that contribute to delay?
The Lawyer as a Public Servant of Justice
One of the most important messages emerging from Justice Nagarathna’s address is the need to reconsider the lawyer’s professional identity.
The legal profession cannot be treated merely as a commercial transaction.
Justice Nagarathna described the profession as an “office of trust,” emphasizing that a lawyer cannot be reduced to someone who simply sells legal knowledge by the hour.
This does not mean that lawyers should not be properly compensated.
Advocacy is demanding intellectual and professional work, and lawyers are fully entitled to reasonable remuneration.
But remuneration cannot be the only measure of professional success.
A successful lawyer should also be measured by:
- integrity;
- competence;
- independence;
- professional judgment;
- reputation;
- service to clients;
- respect for the court;
- contribution to the development of law; and
- commitment to justice.
Why the Remarks Are Particularly Relevant Today
Justice Nagarathna’s observations come at a time when the functioning and credibility of Bar institutions have become subjects of wider discussion within the legal community.
Recent controversies involving the Bar Council of India and its Chairman, Manan Kumar Mishra, including a controversy concerning the enrollment of the 2026 graduating batch of NALSAR, Hyderabad, have generated debate among lawyers and legal institutions.
It is important, however, to make one distinction clear.
Justice Nagarathna’s remarks should not automatically be treated as a judicial finding against any particular individual or institution.
She was delivering a convocation address and speaking about the broader institutional role of bar councils.
Her comments therefore have greater significance as a principled reflection on the legal profession than as an adjudication of any particular controversy.
Regulatory Power Must Be Accompanied by Accountability
A regulator exercises power over professionals.
But the exercise of regulatory power must itself be accountable.
A credible Bar Council should ideally be able to answer basic questions such as
| Question | What It Concerns |
|---|---|
| Is decision-making transparent? | Members should understand how significant institutional decisions are taken. |
| Is there institutional consultation? | Important decisions affecting thousands of advocates should ordinarily involve meaningful institutional deliberation. |
| Are disciplinary processes fair? | Disciplinary jurisdiction must be exercised objectively and consistently. |
| Is there adequate representation? | Bar institutions should genuinely reflect the interests and concerns of the profession. |
| Is financial functioning transparent? | Institutions representing lawyers must maintain strong standards of financial accountability. |
| Is institutional power being exercised for the profession? | Regulatory power should ultimately serve the legal profession, litigants, and the justice system—not merely institutional officeholders. |
These are not demands for weakening Bar Councils.
They are demands for stronger Bar Councils.
Strong Bar Councils Are Necessary for a Strong Bar
There is sometimes a misconception that criticism of Bar Councils weakens the Bar.
The opposite can be true.
A bar council becomes stronger when its members trust it.
A regulatory institution becomes more effective when its decisions command voluntary professional acceptance in addition to legal compliance.
A disciplinary system becomes more credible when lawyers believe that proceedings are fair.
An elected professional body becomes more representative when members feel that their voices matter.
Therefore, institutional criticism should not automatically be treated as institutional hostility.
Constructive criticism can be an essential part of institutional reform.
The Difference Between Authority and Legitimacy
From a lawyer’s perspective, this is perhaps the most important lesson in Justice Nagarathna’s statement.
| Concept | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Authority | Authority comes from law. |
| Legitimacy | Legitimacy comes from trust. |
A Bar Council may derive statutory authority from the Advocates Act.
But its continuing legitimacy depends upon how that authority is exercised.
If members perceive the institution as impartial, competent, and professional, authority is strengthened by legitimacy.
If members perceive it as arbitrary, opaque, or unresponsive, the institution may continue to possess legal powers but experience erosion of professional confidence.
That is precisely why the phrase “earning the respect of its members” is so important.
Respect has to be earned through conduct.
Young Lawyers Must Also Accept Responsibility
Justice Nagarathna’s message was not directed only towards Bar Councils.
It was also a message to young advocates.
The graduates she addressed are entering a profession in which professional reputation takes years to build but can be destroyed by a single serious ethical failure.
They must understand that being a lawyer means more than knowing statutes and case law.
A good advocate must develop:
- Legal knowledge
- Research ability
- Court craft
- Drafting skills
- Professional discipline
- Ethical judgment
- Communication skills
- Independent thinking
- Client management
- Constitutional sensitivity
Technology and artificial intelligence may increasingly assist lawyers with research and drafting.
But technology cannot substitute for professional judgment.
A machine can identify a judgment.
A lawyer must understand whether that judgment actually applies.
A machine can produce an argument.
A lawyer must decide whether that argument is ethically and legally sustainable.
“Officers of the Court and Stewards of the Constitution”
Justice Nagarathna concluded her message to the graduates by reminding them that they were leaving law school as “Officers of the Court and Stewards of the Constitution.”
This is an exceptionally powerful description of the profession.
The phrase “Officer of the Court” reminds the lawyer of the professional duty owed to the justice system.
The phrase “Steward of the Constitution” takes the responsibility one step further.
A constitutional democracy requires lawyers who understand that constitutional values are not merely examination subjects.
They must be reflected in professional conduct.
Equality, liberty, dignity, fairness, access to justice, and the rule of law must remain living principles in advocacy.
What Should Bar Councils Do Going Forward?
In my considered view, Justice Nagarathna’s observations should be converted into an institutional reform agenda.
1. Increase Transparency
Important decisions should be accompanied by clear reasons wherever appropriate.
2. Strengthen Internal Consultation
The bar should have meaningful opportunities to express its views before major decisions affecting professional life are taken.
3. Improve Disciplinary Mechanisms
Disciplinary proceedings should be timely, fair, and transparent.
4. Strengthen Professional Education
Continuing legal education should focus not merely on changes in law but also on ethics, technology, drafting, and professional responsibility.
5. Protect the Independence of the Bar
Bar institutions must remain sufficiently independent to question governmental or institutional action whenever professional or constitutional principles require it.
6. Improve Financial Accountability
Professional bodies should maintain robust systems of audit, disclosure, and institutional oversight.
7. Give Young Lawyers a Stronger Voice
Young advocates are not merely future members of the profession. They are already part of the Bar and should have meaningful institutional representation.
8. Promote Dignity in Professional Relations
Disagreement among lawyers is inevitable. Institutional disagreement should nevertheless remain within the boundaries of professional dignity.
My View as a Practicing Lawyer
After more than two decades of practice, I believe the greatest strength of the Indian Bar has never been merely its numerical strength.
Its greatest strength has been its institutional independence and its ability to speak fearlessly before courts.
A lawyer must be able to stand before a constitutional court and say:
“With respect, I disagree.”
That sentence is one of the most important expressions of constitutional democracy.
But such independence carries a reciprocal responsibility.
- If lawyers demand independence from the state, they must maintain independence from improper private influence.
- If lawyers demand judicial accountability, bar institutions must also accept accountability.
- If lawyers demand transparency from public authorities, professional institutions must practice transparency.
- If lawyers demand respect for the legal profession, the profession must conduct itself in a manner worthy of that respect.
That is the deeper message I take from Justice Nagarathna’s observations.
Conclusion
Justice B.V. Nagarathna’s statement that “when a Bar Council does not earn the respect of its members, it is not a good sign for the legal profession” should not be dismissed as a passing observation at a convocation.
It is a reminder of a fundamental principle of professional governance:
An institution entrusted with regulating a profession must itself command the confidence of that profession.
The independence of the Bar is not a privilege for lawyers. It is a constitutional necessity.
Professional ethics are not merely disciplinary rules. They are the foundation of public confidence.
Bar councils are not merely regulatory authorities. They are custodians of the institutional health of the legal profession.
And lawyers are not merely service providers. They are participants in the administration of justice and, in Justice Nagarathna’s words, “Officers of the Court and Stewards of the Constitution.”
For the Indian legal profession, therefore, the challenge is not simply to preserve the authority of bar councils.
The larger challenge is to ensure that authority, accountability, independence, ethics, and professional respect move together.
| Principle | What It Requires |
|---|---|
| Authority | Responsible exercise of statutory powers by Bar institutions. |
| Accountability | Transparent and fair institutional functioning. |
| Independence | Freedom of the Bar from improper influence. |
| Professional Ethics | Integrity, competence, discipline, and respect for courts. |
| Professional Respect | Trust and confidence among advocates represented by bar institutions. |
A strong bar needs strong institutions.
But strong institutions ultimately depend upon the trust of the professionals they represent.
That is why Justice Nagarathna’s warning deserves serious reflection across every bar association, state bar council, and professional institution in the country.
Citation / Source Note
Justice B.V. Nagarathna’s observations were made during her address at the 13th Convocation of National Law University, Delhi, on August 29, 2026.
The remarks concern the institutional role of Bar Councils, independence of the Bar, professional ethics, competence, and the wider constitutional responsibilities of lawyers; they are observations in a convocation address, not a reported judicial judgment or ratio decidendi.
Justice Nagarathna is a sitting Supreme Court judge who was elevated to the Supreme Court on August 31, 2021, after serving as a judge of the Karnataka High Court.
Need Expert Legal Guidance?
Adv. Tarun Choudhury
Supreme Court Advocate | 25+ Years of Legal Experience
Whether you need guidance on Supreme Court matters, constitutional issues, litigation strategy, legal drafting, or professional legal advice, get in touch for experienced legal assistance.
- 📞 Call: 9650499965
- 💬 WhatsApp: 8851978611
Experienced Counsel. Strategic Legal Guidance. Trusted Representation.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. What did Justice B.V. Nagarathna say about bar councils and the legal profession?
Justice B.V. Nagarathna observed that a Bar Council not earning the respect of its members is not a good sign for the legal profession. Her remarks highlighted the importance of institutional credibility, professional ethics, competence, accountability, and the independence of the Bar.
2. Why is the independence of the Bar important in India?
The independence of the Bar is essential to the justice system and constitutional democracy. Lawyers must be able to represent clients fearlessly, challenge governmental action when necessary, and assist courts independently without improper influence.
3. What is the role of bar councils in maintaining professional ethics?
Bar Councils in India play an important regulatory role in maintaining professional standards, including professional ethics, discipline, and competence among advocates. Their credibility depends on exercising these responsibilities fairly, transparently, and effectively.
4. Why is the credibility of bar councils important for lawyers and the legal profession?
The credibility of Bar Councils is important because lawyers rely on these institutions for professional regulation and representation. A bar council that enjoys the confidence and respect of its members is better positioned to strengthen professional standards and protect the independence and dignity of the legal profession.
5. What constitutional responsibilities do lawyers have as officers of the court?
Lawyers are not merely legal service providers. As officers of the court and stewards of the Constitution, advocates have important responsibilities towards the administration of justice, including maintaining professional integrity, assisting courts fairly, protecting clients’ rights, and upholding the rule of law and constitutional values.
🔑 Key Takeaways: Bar Council Not Earning Members’ Respect — Justice B.V. Nagarathna
- Justice B.V. Nagarathna stressed that a Bar Council not earning the respect of its members is not a good sign for the legal profession.
- Bar Council credibility matters: Bar Councils derive statutory authority from law, but lasting institutional legitimacy depends on trust, fairness, transparency, and accountability.
- Independence of the Bar is essential: An independent Bar enables lawyers to represent clients fearlessly, challenge governmental action, and protect constitutional rights without improper influence.
- Professional ethics must remain central: Lawyers must uphold integrity, honesty, professional discipline, competence, and respect for courts, rather than viewing ethics merely as disciplinary rules.
- Bar Councils must introspect: Central and State Bar Councils should continuously examine whether they are effectively protecting professional standards, independence, and the dignity of advocates.
- Authority and respect are different: A Bar Council may possess statutory powers, but respect cannot be commanded—it must be earned through responsible and transparent functioning.
- Lawyers have responsibilities beyond clients: Advocates are officersJustice B.V. Nagarathna Bar Council of the court and participants in the administration of justice. Their professional conduct directly affects public confidence in the legal system.
- The Bar has a role in reducing judicial delay: Lawyers, courts, litigants, and other stakeholders must collectively address pendency, unnecessary adjournments, procedural delays, and rising litigation costs.
- Young lawyers need more than legal knowledge: New advocates should develop legal research, drafting, advocacy, ethical judgment, professional discipline, and constitutional understanding.
- Professional institutions need accountability: Strong Bar Councils require transparent decision-making, fair disciplinary processes, meaningful consultation, and effective representation of advocates.
- Independence carries responsibility: Lawyers who demand an independent bar must also protect the profession from improper influence, unethical practices, and conflicts of interest.
- The larger message: Justice Nagarathna’s observations underline that a strong legal profession requires strong, credible, and respected bar institutions.
Important Links
- Lawyers in India
- Copyright Registration in India
- Caveat Filing in Supreme Court of India
- Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi NCR: WhatsApp 9650499965
