It has be conceded with grace and humility that the Apex Court on August 14, 2026 came down heavily launching a most scathing open criticism of the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) now withdrawn order that no law student of NALSAR Hyderabad’s 2026 batch would be allowed to enroll as advocates until further orders solely due to their huge protests on the invitation of CJI Hon’ble Mr Surya Kant as Chief Guest for their convocation over his alleged comments of “cockroach” and inaction on police brutalities during the recent protests that took place at Jantar Mantar. It was made indubitably clear by the CJI that, “Right to profession cannot be threatened for expressing dissent and even students have a right to protest.” While playing on the front foot, CJI himself minced absolutely just no words to pooh-pooh the drastic action that had been taken by BCI barring law students of NALSAR Hyderabad’s 2026 batch to be enrolled as advocates in any State which shook the entire nation.
CJI heading a three Judge Bench also comprising Hon’ble Mr Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Hon’ble Ms Justice V Mohana said most explicitly during a hearing against the BCI’s actions that, “Naturally, this is absolutely uncalled for. Who is the Bar Council of India (BCI) to come between the students and me? The Bar Council of India has no business here… It is a dialogue between the students and me. Why is the BCI unnecessarily interfering? Who are they to raise an issue? This is totally uncalled for.” CJI also most candidly conceded that, “In my students days I have been actively involved in student activities. Assuming even if they are wrong, they have a right to protest. BCI doesn’t have any business.” It must be apprised that the top court barred the BCI from taking any coercive actions against NALSAR students and staff and gave the council two weeks to explain its directives.
The matter has been now posted for hearing after two weeks. It must be brought out here that legal experts point out that supervisory power of Section 48B in the Advocates Act, 1961 over state bar councils cannot be used to create a new ground of disqualification or a power to indefinitely suspend enrolment which Parliament has not conferred. It is also worth paying heed to what the Karnataka High Court in its brilliant decision of 2024 in Sri S Basavaraj vs Bar Council of India ruled while dealing with BCI’s supervisory powers that general supervision and control over State Bar Councils does not automatically confer power to issue “gag orders”. It definitely must be given a food of thought that when the BCI cannot use general supervisory power to silence advocates who are already in the profession then it is incomprehensible that how can an even broader use of that power against students who have not yet entered the profession be ever justified?
In hindsight, it may be recalled that the students of NALSAR had written to the law university’s administration expressing their antipathy towards inviting the Chief Justice. Their objection had followed nationwide huge outrage over the CJI’s oral remarks referring to certain individuals as “parasites” and “cockroaches”. The students were also very deeply upset on CJI’s disinclination to view videos of police brutality against students protesting the NEET-UG paper leaks in Delhi.
We need to note that even as the top court recorded that the BCI has since rescinded the action that had earlier been directed against the students and the inquiry into the protests, the Court proceeded to issue notice on the plea. For sake of clarity, the Bench made it indubitably clear that no punitive action should be taken against NALSAR or any of its students or faculty or any other national law university by the BCI. The top court in its order held that, “Issue notice. Meanwhile no action shall be taken against student or faculty of any national law university/law university. BCI accepts notice. Pending circular has been withdrawn. Be that as it may let counter affidavit may be filed within 2 weeks. No punitive action to be taken against students of NALSAR in respect of the incidents mentioned in the subject letters.”
As we see, the CJI Hon’ble Mr Surya Kant then hastened to add further saying that, “Even in young days somebody makes a wrong statement that doesn’t mean they don’t have right to protest. Please tell all the students (of NALSAR) to get enrolled, join Supreme Court Bar; we will empanel them for legal aid cases. This will be the befitting answer to all those who caused impediment in their professional career.” Undoubtedly, CJI deserves to be specially commended for coming out so openly, displaying broad mentality and forthrightly speaking in favour of students who intend to boycott convocation ceremony in which he was invited as Chief Guest! This will always undoubtedly be a big feather in his cap!
For the uninitiated, it must be disclosed that this raging controversy stemmed from a letter that had been written by NALSAR students to the University lodging their protest at the invitation of CJI Hon’ble Mr Surya Kant as Chief Guest for their convocation over his alleged inexplicable inaction on the police brutalities during the recent protests at Jantar Mantar. It merits noting that the students pointed out that it did not sit right to receive their degrees from a dignitary whose recent public conduct appeared quite dismissive of serious allegations of police brutality against protesting citizens. It is worth paying singular attention that the letter lamentably referred to a mentioning made before the CJI by a lawyer for urgent hearing of the issue on July 22, when the CJI scornfully told the counsel that, “Don’t waste our time, and don’t waste your time.”
It cannot go unnoticed that the representation by students states that when counsel offered to show video evidence of the alleged police action of acts of violence against students, the CJI most appallingly and most astoundingly remarked that, “We are not interested in videos; we don’t have time to watch.” It needs to be laid bare that the representation was reportedly signed by around 70 students of the outgoing 2006 batch. It must be borne in mind that two days later, about 380 more students from the 2027 to 2031 batches also extended their unstinted support.
It must be noted that in response to this, the first BCI circular that was authored by BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra had barred the entire 2026 batch of NALSAR from being enrolled as advocates due to their fierce opposition to have CJI as the Chief Guest for their convocation. It is worth noting that the BCI circular stated most emphatically that, “As per some reliable sources, there exists groupism and dirty politics among some of the academic staff and they have played very active role in misleading, instigating and misguiding the students. This is a very serious matter. The teachers, instead of involving themselves in their teaching job, are doing nasty politics in the campus. Bar Council of India, being the regulator of Legal Education cannot be a mute spectator of such a serious situation.”
It cannot be just glossed over that the second circular which was passed by the BCI within hours of the first, reversed the decision on halting enrolment of students as advocates, but retained the decision for an inquiry into the persons who were instrumental in initiating, organizing or mobilizing the zealous campaign to protest the invitation of the CJI. In this regard, it also must be noted that the BCI also sought an inquiry report from the University. It would be worthwhile to note that after the second circular was passed, NALSAR Vice Chancellor Prof Srikrishna Deva Rao had issued a press release stating that the University would first examine whether such an inquiry is permitted under its governance regulations.
It is entirely in the fitness of things that the Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra did not shy away from issuing an apology to the law students in a letter that was issued on independence Day. We must note that the apology follows strident criticism from students at National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR) University of Law at Hyderabad and National Law School of India University (NLSIU) Bangalore over BCI’s inept handling of the row surrounding CJI Hon’ble Mr Surya Kant’s participation in NALSAR’s 2026 convocation. What ought to be noted is that though the apology does not name the university or dispute directly, it refers to recent developments which he said had caused concern among students. Mishra in his statement said clearly that, “If anything connected with the present controversy, any of my words or letters, has hurt the feelings of our law students, I sincerely regret and apologize for the same. There should be no hesitation in saying so. An expression of regret is not a matter of prestige or ego. It is simply an acknowledgment that the feelings and concerns of our students matter.”
Plainly speaking, it must be noted that eminent and senior lawyer Manoj Kumar N who is a member of the BCI and Bar Council of Kerala eruditely pointed out that, “The blanket direction stopping the entire 2026 NALSAR batch from enrolling has no statutory basis. Enrolment is primarily the statutory function of the State Bar Councils under the Advocates Act, and there appears to be no specific provision empowering the BCI Chairman, acting individually, to suspend the enrolment of an entire batch.” Absolutely right! There is a lot of merit in what Manoj Kumar N has pointed out so plainly and persuasively! Another eminent and senior lawyer Yeshwanth Shenoy who is also a member of the Bar Council of Kerala was also most forthright in holding explicitly that, “No blanket restrictions can be imposed by the BCI. Every application has to be dealt with independently and if they meet the statutory requirements, they are entitled to be enrolled.” No denying or disputing it!
Senior advocate KK Manan who is Chairman of Bar Council of Delhi did not mince any words to hold plainly that, “We are living in a democratic country. To criticize or to do any agitation, it is our fundamental right given by our Constitution. Nobody can take that away. BCI should withdraw it, failing which we will start our agitation against BCI.” One fervently hope that dissent which is central to any democracy is shown more tolerance by BCI which will only serve to enhance its own credibility further!
In conclusion, we thus see that the Supreme Court Bar Association President Vikas Singh called the move of barring enrollment as advocates “illegal”, “disproportionate” and “fundamentally unsustainable”, while also making clear that he did not endorse the students’ opposition to the CJI’s invitation. This is a pragmatic stand which has to be commended! No denying or disputing it!
The BCI also subsequently modified its earlier much criticized order saying that the “vast majority” of NALSAR’s 2026 graduates were innocent and should not be made to suffer for the alleged conduct of a few. BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra also said that the 2026 batch had no role in any disturbance or movement and that no further action was required against them. One thus now fervently hope that this festering issue that has suddenly rocked the Indian judicial system will now finally be laid to complete rest and BCI will in future also show more restraint in punishing students so early in their life when they are yet to step in the profession and be more liberal in its approach with law students freshly graduated!
Sanjeev Sirohi