How does judicial review serve as a check on jurisdictional overreach by professional regulatory bodies? Illustrate with a recent example.

Judicial review is the power of constitutional courts under Articles 32 and 226 to test State and statutory action against the enabling law and Fundamental Rights [2]. Professional regulators — the Bar Council of India, NMC, ICAI — are creatures of statute; when they stray beyond their charter, judicial review is the primary corrective.

How judicial review restrains regulatory overreach

• Ultra vires test: courts confine a regulator to the "four corners" of its parent Act. The Advocates Act, 1961 empowers the BCI over enrolment, professional conduct and discipline of advocates — not over persons outside that class [1][3].
• Rights-based scrutiny: coercive directives that produce a "chilling effect" on Article 19(1)(a) speech and 19(1)(c) association invite strict review [2][4].
• Voiding the instrument: an order beyond jurisdiction is declared void ab initio, not merely set aside, erasing its legal effect [3].
• Prophylactic value: courts may rule even after withdrawal of the impugned action, settling the boundary to prevent recurrence [4].

Illustration: Supreme Court on the BCI–NALSAR letters (September 2026)

• On 13 August 2026 the BCI wrote to NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad and State Bar Councils seeking action against the 2026 graduating batch over conduct at a convocation [4].
• Though the letters were withdrawn within an hour, the Court decided the jurisdictional question [4].
• It held that Bar Councils have no disciplinary power over law students — jurisdiction begins only on enrolment as an advocate — and declared the letters "without any authority of law" [3][4].

Judicial review thus converts regulatory autonomy into accountable autonomy, ensuring statutory bodies remain agents of their enabling law rather than its authors. Since litigation is a costly, post-facto remedy, regulators should institutionalise internal legal vetting and reasoned orders, with parliamentary committees reviewing their conduct — making self-restraint, not judicial rebuke, the first line of defence for the rule of law.