Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant on Friday came down heavily on the Bar Council of India (BCI) over its intervention in the NALSAR University of Law enrolment controversy, saying the Council had “no business” interfering with students’ right to protest and making it clear that the court would not allow students to be stopped from raising their voice through lawful and peaceful protests. He restrained the BCI and all state bar councils from pursuing any punitive or criminal action against students and faculty of any national law university or university in connection with the row.
The CJI’s observations came hours after BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra announced that the Council had decided to close its proceedings against the 2026 graduating batch of NALSAR, Hyderabad, after initially freezing their enrolment and then withdrawing the freeze while retaining an inquiry into those allegedly instrumental in the students’ campaign against CJI Kant being invited as chief guest at their convocation.
The Supreme Court, meanwhile, took on board a petition seeking directions to restrain the BCI from issuing such directives in future and issued notice to the Council. A bench headed by CJI Kant, along with justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, directed the BCI to file its counter-affidavit within two weeks.
“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,” said the CJI after senior advocate K Parameshwar mentioned the matter before the bench.
Parameshwar submitted that the BCI had “no business” dealing with what was happening inside a university and that its action violated the students’ fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. He said the BCI’s withdrawal of the first letter freezing enrolment did not wipe out the cause of action against the Council. “It spells a lot about the functioning of the BCI,” Parameshwar said.
The CJI responded: “We are with you. This is absolutely uncalled for. They had no business to interfere. The students have written a letter to me, and it is between me and the students. There is a dialogue between us.”
The Chief Justice also drew upon his own experience as a student to underscore the importance of allowing dissent on university campuses. “In my younger days, I was also actively involved in student activities. They have a right to protest. Who can stop them? So long as they are lawfully and peacefully protesting, they have a right to raise their voice,” he said.
At another point, the CJI said: “We have to be large-hearted. They should be allowed to speak. Even if they are wrong, they have a right to speak.”
Justice Bagchi also sought to know whether the BCI Council had actually been convened to issue the resolution concerning the NALSAR students. “You will have to tell us about this in your reply,” the judge told advocate Radhika Gautam, who appeared for the BCI.
Parameshwar told the bench that he had been informed by a BCI member from Kerala that no meeting of the Council had taken place and questioned how such a decision could have been taken.
The court also asked BCI to ensure that the students’ enrolment was not held up, while sending a message to them through Parameshwar. “You tell all students they should enroll as soon as possible and take the SCBA membership,” the CJI told the senior counsel.
In its order, the bench said that, pending further proceedings, “no punitive or criminal action shall be taken against students or faculty of any national law universities or other universities.”
The controversy began after a section of NALSAR students objected to CJI Kant being invited as the chief guest for their convocation. The first representation was submitted on July 23 by 70 members of the outgoing LLB batch, with students from several other batches subsequently expressing solidarity.
The students had cited remarks made by CJI Kant during proceedings on a plea concerning alleged police excesses during student protests in Delhi. They argued that the choice of convocation chief guest should reflect NALSAR’s commitment to constitutional rights, access to justice and reasoned engagement with grievances.
The immediate judicial intervention on Friday came as the BCI itself made a third shift in its position on the controversy on Friday morning.
Mishra said in a post on X that the Council had decided to “close the proceedings altogether” against the NALSAR 2026 batch after considering representations and reactions from senior advocates, members of the Bar, law students and “public-spirited citizens”.
“After considering the representations and reactions of Senior Advocates, learned members of the Bar, law students and public-spirited citizens, and being satisfied that the 2026 batch of NALSAR, Hyderabad, had no role in any disturbance or movement, the Bar Council of India has decided to close the proceedings altogether. No further action is required from NALSAR,” Mishra said.
The announcement marked a further retreat from the BCI’s position just a day earlier.
On Thursday, Mishra had first directed all State Bar Councils not to enrol any student who had obtained a law degree from NALSAR in 2026 “till further orders”. The BCI had simultaneously sought an authenticated report from the university identifying those who had initiated, organised, coordinated or mobilised the campaign opposing CJI Kant’s participation in the convocation.
Hours later, the BCI issued a second communication modifying the enrolment freeze. It said the “vast majority” of the students were innocent and that “no student shall be made to suffer without any fault on his part”. However, it retained an inquiry into allegations that a handful of teachers and outsiders had instigated or misled students. The latest statement by Mishra now abandons even that inquiry.
The BCI chairman said the decision followed the representations received after the two communications issued on Thursday and the press release issued by NALSAR vice-chancellor Srikrishna Deva Rao. The vice-chancellor had said the university would first examine, under its governance regulations, whether an inquiry sought by the BCI was within its constitutional powers.
Mishra, while closing the proceedings, nevertheless advised the students to maintain institutional decorum. “A word of wisdom: we take immense pride in our legal institutions, and the day you enrol, you become vanguards. Voice your opinions freely, but with respect and institutional decorum. The highest judicial office is our collective pride. Dissent is welcome in a democracy; public ridicule of it is often counterproductive,” he said.
