The BCI’s decision to temporarily block enrolment of NALSAR’s 2026 graduates triggered a backlash before the regulator reversed course and cleared all students to join the legal profession.
BY PC BUREAU
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant has pushed back against the Bar Council of India’s intervention in the controversy surrounding NALSAR University of Law’s 2026 convocation, saying the dispute was essentially “a dialogue between me and the students” and that the BCI’s action against the graduating students was “absolutely uncalled for.”
The Chief Justice’s remarks came after the BCI briefly directed State Bar Councils not to enrol the university’s 2026 graduating students as advocates, following a campaign by a section of NALSAR students opposing his invitation as chief guest at the convocation.
The controversy began with a group of students from the outgoing batch objecting to CJI Surya Kant’s proposed presence at the convocation. The initial group was reported to comprise around 70 students, but the campaign subsequently received support from a much larger section of the university community. Some reports put the number of students backing the protest at around 450 out of NALSAR’s approximately 1,400 students.
The students said their objection was rooted in principles and the values associated with legal education rather than a personal opposition to the Chief Justice.
READ- ‘Next, He’ll Hide in a Trash Can’: Iran Mocks Trump’s Escape
READ–BCI U-Turn on NALSAR Graduates After CJI Surya Kant Row
At the centre of the dispute were oral observations attributed to Justice Surya Kant during a Supreme Court hearing concerning alleged police action against protesters at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar in July 2026. The students argued that some of the remarks were inconsistent with the principles of civil liberties and dissent that they had been taught at law school.
They therefore questioned whether receiving their degrees from the Chief Justice at the convocation would be consistent with those values.
The campaign quickly became a larger debate over freedom of expression, student dissent and the relationship between law students and the judiciary.
BCI intervention
The dispute took a dramatic turn on August 13, when BCI Chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra directed all State Bar Councils not to enrol any student graduating from NALSAR in 2026 until further orders.
The BCI also sought a report from the university’s Vice-Chancellor identifying students who had allegedly organised or mobilised the campaign against the Chief Justice.
The regulator cited concerns over respect for the judiciary and professional standards, effectively linking the students’ conduct as university graduates to their eligibility for entry into the legal profession.
The order immediately triggered criticism from sections of the legal fraternity.
Supreme Court Bar Association President Vikas Singh described the BCI action as arbitrary, illegal and disproportionate, questioning the authority of the regulator to impose such a blanket restriction on an entire graduating batch over a student campaign.
The intervention also raised questions about the autonomy of universities and whether a professional regulator could penalise students for exercising their right to express disagreement with a constitutional authority while they were still students.
BCI reverses decision
The BCI subsequently reversed its position within hours, acknowledging that the overwhelming majority of the 2026 graduating students were innocent and had no intention of showing disrespect to the judiciary.
The students were cleared to enrol with the State Bar Council of their choice, and the proceedings were subsequently closed entirely.
Mishra later described the original decision as one taken in haste.
The rapid reversal further intensified debate over the appropriateness of the initial circular and the extent of the BCI’s regulatory powers.
Supreme Court intervention
The issue also reached the Supreme Court, which sought a response from the BCI on its circulars and directed that no punitive action be taken against NALSAR students or faculty.
It was in this context that CJI Surya Kant sought to distance the controversy from any institutional confrontation between the judiciary and the university.
The Chief Justice said the episode was essentially a matter between himself and the students.
His observation that it was “a dialogue between me and the students” was significant because it suggested that disagreement with a judge, even when expressed publicly by law students, did not necessarily warrant intervention by the statutory body responsible for regulating the legal profession.
Justice Surya Kant also pointed to his own experience as a student who had actively participated in protests, underscoring the distinction between youthful dissent and conduct warranting professional disciplinary action.
By framing the issue this way, the Chief Justice appeared to acknowledge the legitimacy of student disagreement while rejecting the idea that the BCI should automatically treat such dissent as professional misconduct.
NALSAR weighs university autonomy
The controversy has also placed NALSAR’s institutional autonomy under scrutiny.
The university has indicated that its Executive Council would examine whether any inquiry sought or mandated by the BCI could legally and constitutionally be undertaken under the university’s governing framework.
That question goes beyond the immediate dispute.
NALSAR, as a premier national law university, operates within a framework that gives its academic and administrative bodies defined powers. The episode has therefore raised the larger question of whether an external professional regulator can direct a university to identify students involved in a campus campaign and potentially subject them to professional consequences.
For the students, the controversy has similarly raised concerns about whether expressing political, constitutional or judicial criticism while at university could affect their future entry into the legal profession.
For the BCI, the episode highlighted the difficult boundary between maintaining professional standards and policing speech or dissent.
A wider debate over dissent
The NALSAR controversy has consequently evolved into a broader debate over the limits of student dissent in institutions that train future members of the legal profession.
Law students are expected to understand constitutional freedoms, judicial independence and professional ethics. But legal education also traditionally encourages questioning of judicial reasoning and engagement with contentious questions of law and public policy.
The central issue, therefore, is not merely whether the students were right or wrong in opposing the Chief Justice’s invitation.
It is whether disagreement with a constitutional authority, expressed peacefully and without disrupting the functioning of an institution, should have professional consequences.
The Chief Justice’s intervention has effectively shifted the focus back to that question.
By describing the BCI’s action as “absolutely uncalled for” and characterising the episode as a conversation between the Chief Justice and the students, Justice Surya Kant has signalled that dissent by law students need not automatically be treated as an affront to the judiciary.
The episode has also exposed the delicate balance between judicial authority, student freedom, university autonomy and the regulatory powers of the BCI — a debate likely to continue well beyond NALSAR’s 2026 convocation.
