The Bar Council of India (BCI) has recently been embroiled in a significant controversy surrounding its order to freeze the enrolment of the entire 2026 graduating batch of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad. Although this contentious decision was swiftly reversed following widespread condemnation, the repercussions and discussions continue to resonate throughout the legal community and beyond.
In a recent development, BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra issued an apology to the affected law students, expressing profound regret if any aspect of the controversy, including his communications, had caused distress. This apology was made public shortly after Chief Justice of India Surya Kant vehemently criticized the BCI for its unwarranted intervention in the NALSAR enrolment dispute.
The genesis of this row dates back several weeks when a contingent of NALSAR students raised objections to the proposed presence of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as the chief guest at the university’s convocation. On July 23, 70 members of the graduating LLB batch submitted a formal representation to the university’s vice-chancellor, registrar, and professors, detailing their opposition. Subsequently, students from various other batches lent their support to this representation, as HT reported earlier.
The students’ primary grievance, articulated in an email to university officials, stemmed from the Supreme Court bench, led by CJI Kant, declining to hear a plea concerning alleged police brutality against students during the ‘Chalo Sansad’ march on July 20 in New Delhi’s Jantar Mantar. They argued that a convocation should ideally reflect the university’s core values, including a steadfast commitment to constitutional rights, ensuring access to justice, and fostering a rational engagement with grievances.
In response to the student protests, the BCI chairman, Manan Kumar Mishra, took the drastic step of instructing all State Bar Councils not to enroll any 2026 law graduate from NALSAR University as advocates until further directives. Furthermore, NALSAR was mandated to provide a detailed report identifying individuals who had initiated, organized, or mobilized the campaign against the CJI’s participation. The BCI also sought information on the involvement of faculty members, research scholars, alumni, student organizations, or external entities in the boycott, requesting details such as representations, signatories, meeting records, social media interactions, and calls for boycott or disruption. The initial justification for this temporary freeze was to prevent interference with the ongoing inquiry.
However, the BCI’s order was swiftly rescinded within hours due to intense backlash, which included a threat of protest from Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) founder Abhijeet Dipke. The revised notification acknowledged that the “vast majority” of students were innocent and should not be penalized for the alleged misconduct of a few.
The controversy escalated when CJI Surya Kant sternly rebuked the BCI, asserting that the council had “no business” interfering with students’ legitimate right to protest. He declared that the court would not permit students to be silenced from expressing their views through lawful and peaceful means. The CJI specifically restrained the BCI and all state bar councils from pursuing any punitive or criminal actions against NALSAR students and faculty in connection with this matter. As senior advocate K Parameshwar brought the issue before the bench, the CJI stated, “The BCI is unnecessarily taking action in this matter. If students have a cause or a reason to protest, they have a right to protest. Nobody can stop them, and we will not allow this.”
Following the CJI’s unequivocal remarks, BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra formally apologized to the law students. In a letter addressed to his “dear young friends,” Mishra acknowledged the “concern and anguish” that had permeated a segment of the student community, emphasizing that student concerns, when feeling hurt or aggrieved, warrant patient, sensitive, and respectful consideration. He explicitly stated, “If anything connected with the present controversy, any of my words, or letter, has hurt the feelings of our law students, I sincerely regret and apologise for the same.” Mishra underscored that an expression of regret is not a matter of prestige or ego but rather an acknowledgment that the feelings and concerns of students are paramount. This entire episode has brought into sharp focus the dynamics between regulatory bodies, academic freedom, and student activism within Indian news and legal education.
