NLSIU students disapprove of BCI chairman and CJI attending convocation

A significant wave of dissent has emerged from the National Law School of India University (NLSIU) in Bengaluru, where students and alumni have voiced profound disapproval regarding the presence of Bar Council of India (BCI) chairman, Manan Kumar Mishra, at their university’s convocation. This discontent is rooted in Mishra’s perceived lack of accountability for his actions concerning the recent controversies involving NALSAR University of Law, a sentiment that extends to the attendance of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) at the same event.

The collective statement, a powerful articulation of student and alumni sentiment, was endorsed by 165 graduating students from the Class of 2026, 409 current students, and 128 alumni. This substantial show of unity underscores the depth of concern within the NLSIU community, which has also extended its “unconditional solidarity” to the students and faculty of NALSAR. The signatories emphasized that a convocation represents a pivotal and deeply personal milestone in a student’s academic journey, a moment of immense pride for both the graduates and their families. To invite individuals holding such high office, who have publicly expressed disdain and condescension towards students, is not only offensive and humiliating but also, in their view, a profound mockery of the students and the considerable struggles they have overcome to achieve their degrees.

The statement explicitly articulated their strong disapproval of Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra’s attendance at the NLSIU convocation without any acknowledgment or responsibility for his contentious conduct. Furthermore, the NLSIU community stands firmly with NALSAR in its plea to reconsider the CJI’s role as Chief Guest for their convocation, extending this same disapproval to the CJI’s presence at the NLSIU ceremony for identical reasons.

At the heart of the students’ demands is an unconditional apology from the Bar Council of India to the entire student and faculty body at NALSAR. This apology is sought for what they describe as a blatant attempt to infringe upon their fundamental right to free speech and expression. Beyond the apology, the NLSIU community has called upon the BCI to provide a transparent explanation regarding the established protocol for the Chairperson’s use of the BCI’s official letterhead, suggesting concerns about potential misuse or lack of accountability.

A particularly strong point of contention was the BCI’s directive to NALSAR to identify students and faculty members involved in making a representation. This action was vehemently criticized as a “witch-hunt” and a dangerous precedent that could have a chilling effect on free speech across all educational institutions. The students warned that such punitive measures send a clear and intimidating signal: any act of dissent will be met with severe personal and professional repercussions, thereby stifling critical thought and open discourse.

The students further argued that the BCI’s actions extend beyond the legitimate powers conferred upon it by the Advocates Act, 1961. They explicitly alleged that these directives constitute a direct interference with the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression, as enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The statement also took aim at what it characterized as a recurring pattern of partisan political commentary by the BCI chairman, asserting that such repeated conduct has significantly eroded public trust in the integrity and impartiality of the legal profession. As aspiring legal professionals and responsible citizens, the signatories expressed a clear demand for a more accountable and principled Bar Council of India.

While acknowledging that the BCI had subsequently closed the proceedings against NALSAR, the NLSIU students emphasized that the very initiation of such proceedings by a statutory body raised significant concerns about its overreach and arbitrary exercise of power. The purpose of their comprehensive statement, released on a Saturday, was to meticulously “set the record straight” and to establish a precedent that would actively prevent similar incidents of perceived infringement on academic freedom and fundamental rights from occurring in the future.