This qualitative case study was aimed to investigate the notions of power and hegemony in research consultations around the construct of language ideologies. The study employed purposive sampling by selecting two MS (Education) research supervisees with their supervisors. It identified a social wrong of power and hegemony in research supervision practices with a transformative spirit, and aimed to bring about awareness and modifications in research supervision. Methodically, the study followed the analytical approach of Norman Fairclough's Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA, 1989; 2003). Data were collected through observations and transcriptions of research consultation meetings and interviews of the participants. The textual analysis of case one revealed how language became a source of establishing asymmetrical power relations between the participants. Contrastingly, for case two, the consultations were not hinged on language aspects and had more equality and homogeneity between the partners. The findings of the study indicated that language ideologies played a very important role in sustaining the dominant position of the powerful agent, that is, the supervisor. Based on the findings, this research will contribute towards implementation of better democratic practices of supervision, equity and emancipation in supervision as a social practice.