This qualitative case study research in ethnography aimed to investigate the notions of power and hegemony in research consultations around the construct of language ideologies. The study selected two MS (Education) research supervisees with their supervisors as two case studies. The researcher identified unequal power and hegemony in research supervision practices through informal discourses with the supervisees, and designed the study to get an in depth understanding of the phenomenon in detail. It hoped that this research would bring about awareness about the processes and practices of research supervision. There was no attempt at generalization for larger audiences and organizational studies. The research question was: What aspects of power and hegemony are embedded in research supervisees’ and their supervisors’ discourses in higher education around the construct of language ideologies? For the empirical exploration of the notions of power and hegemony in supervision practices, the study used the analytical approach of Norman Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) (1989; 2003). The study followed the critical strand of ideology (Woolard, 2002) which examines power and hegemony in social practices. The findings of the study revealed how language became a source of power relations between the research participants. The discourses of the first case were largely affected by the institutional structure and control, which influenced the supervision practices and gave them a highly structured form. Language was a major concern in the consultation meetings, which became a source of establishing asymmetrical power relations between the participants. Language ideologies played a very important role in sustaining the dominant position of the powerful agent. The voice of the supervisee was silent on many occasions and was affected by the supervisor. The case two was in a sharp contrast with case one in approach and style of supervision. The structure of supervision was very flexible and there was absence of language concern. The notable finding was the element of Islamic references included in research work and a disapproval of western structures of research, which equated English language and education. The voice of the supervisee was given strength and encouragement by the supervisor. This connected the topic to the socio-historical processes of normalization of western structures and English x language in the country. The study filled the gap in knowledge related to language ideologies in research supervision. Based on the findings, the study presents recommendations for the supervisors, university administration, HEC, supervisees, language policy planners and the larger society. The focus of the recommendations is to create equity and give voice to the supervisees who need freedom in academic participation. Based on the findings, it is assumed that this research would lead to more democratic styles of supervision, and equity and emancipation in supervision as a social practice.