The Supreme Court on Friday strongly questioned the Bar Council of India (BCI) for acting against NALSAR University of Law students over their campaign related to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant’s participation in the university’s convocation.
CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made strong observations. The Bench criticised the BCI’s action and said students cannot be punished simply for peacefully expressing their views.
“BCI is unnecessarily taking action. If the students have a cause to protest, they have the right to protest. Students might have written a letter to me. It’s a dialogue between students and me. Who are they (BCI) to unnecessarily raise an issue? This is totally uncalled for. BCI has nothing to do with this,” CJI said.
Right to Protest
The CJI said peaceful student activism alone cannot be a reason to take punitive action. He recalled that he too had participated in student activities when he was young.
“I myself, during student days, was involved in student activities. Peacefully they are raising voice, they should be allowed. Even if they are wrong, assuming, they have the right to protest. Who can stop them? So long as they are lawfully and peacefully raising a voice, they must be heard. Why Bar Council or any other body should interfere?” CJI observed.
“Even if during the young days someone makes a statement which is wrong, let that be wrong, but why should there be an action,” CJI said.
Petition Mentioned
The observations came after Senior Advocate K Parameshwar orally mentioned a writ petition challenging action taken by BCI Chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra against the NALSAR students. Although the BCI had later withdrawn the challenged directions, Parameshwar said there were still important questions about the way the BCI Chairman had taken the action.
He said there was no sign that a BCI meeting had approved the decision, and referred to opposition from a BCI member from Kerala.
“The functioning of the Bar Council itself is a serious issue,” Parameshwar submitted.
Advocate Radhika Gautam, appearing for the BCI, told the Court that the earlier decision had already been withdrawn. However, Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned how that decision had been made.
“Was BCI convened to take a resolution like that? We want to know,” Justice Bagchi asked.
No Punitive Action
The Bench agreed to hear the petition after it was mentioned orally. It also gave a temporary order saying that the BCI and State Bar Councils cannot take punitive action against NALSAR students or faculty members over the incidents mentioned in the Chairman’s communications about the campaign against the CJI taking part in the convocation.
Invitation to Graduates
After the order, CJI Surya Kant invited NALSAR graduates to join the Supreme Court Bar and take part in legal-aid work.
“You tell the students, get the license at the earliest. Join the Supreme Court bar. We will empanel them for legal aid cases, and let them do legal aid. This will be the befitting answer to all those who caused impediment in their career,” the CJI said.
Earlier BCI Direction
The Supreme Court stepped in a day after BCI Chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra directed all State Bar Councils not to enrol NALSAR students graduating in 2026 as advocates until further orders. The direction followed reports that some outgoing students opposed inviting CJI Surya Kant to the university’s convocation, reportedly because of his comments about student protests in Delhi.
In his communication to the NALSAR Vice-Chancellor and the State Bar Councils, the BCI Chairman stated:
“Till further orders, no student of NALSAR University of Law, who has obtained the Law Degree in the year 2026, shall be enrolled by any State Bar Council as an Advocate,”
Information Sought
The BCI also asked NALSAR to give it a verified factual report naming people who were allegedly involved in starting, organising, coordinating, or mobilising the campaign. It also asked for copies of representations, petitions, memoranda, and other communications about the CJI’s proposed participation in the convocation, along with the names of people who signed them, if those names were available in the university’s official records.
The BCI also asked for details about the role of student groups, faculty members, research scholars, alumni, and outsiders. It sought information about people who may have written or circulated material for the campaign, organised meetings, spoken to the media, or managed social media groups connected with the campaign.
“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.”
BCI’s Reasoning
The BCI said that, at that stage, no student had been officially declared disqualified to enrol as an advocate because they took part in the campaign. However, it said the temporary stop on enrolment was necessary because allowing enrolment while the inquiry was still ongoing could affect or defeat the inquiry. The Chairman also questioned whether people who were alleged to have shown disrespect to the country’s highest judicial office were fit to join the legal profession.
“A student of Law, having no regard or respect for the highest Judicial Office of the country, is not expected to be a responsible or sensible Advocate, Teacher or a Judge. Such persons shall always be a liability on the profession. Such conduct, reflects adversely upon the person’s suitability for entry into or association with the legal profession and is inconsistent with the dignity, discipline and ethical standards of the legal profession. Our experience is that such people are always indulged in strikes and boycotts and tarnish the image of the Legal Profession,” the Chairman said.
Ban Withdrawn
The BCI later reconsidered its decision. After discussions by the BCI Council, it withdrew the blanket restriction on enrolment of the entire NALSAR 2026 graduating batch. The Council said that most students were innocent and did not intend to take part in any move showing disrespect to the CJI.
“The Council has thoroughly discussed and deliberated over the letter issued by the Chairman, Bar Council of India to the Vice-Chancellor, NALSAR University of Law and the Secretaries of all the State Bar Councils today. After thorough discussion the Members are of the unanimous view that as per the latest report, vast majority of the students of NALSAR (2026 pass out students) are innocent and they were not inclined to take part in the move of disrespect. Accordingly, the Council modifies the order of Chairman with regard to the ban on the enrolment of the NALSAR Students with the State Bar Councils. All the students will be entitled to get enrolled with the State Bar Councils of their choice”, the order states.
Case Before the Court
The BCI has decided to wait for the factual report from the NALSAR Vice-Chancellor before considering further action against people found to have played a role in the campaign. It also said it had received reports that a small number of teachers and outsiders may have influenced or instigated students.
The BCI first stopped the enrolment of all NALSAR students graduating in 2026, but later withdrew that decision. The matter has now come before the Supreme Court.
At this temporary stage of the case, the Court has made it clear that the BCI or any State Bar Council cannot take punitive action against the students or faculty over the incidents mentioned in the Chairman’s communications.
