The Bar Council of India (BCI), headed by chairman and BJP Rajya Sabha MP Manan Kumar Mishra has withdrawn its decision to defer the enrolment of the 2026 graduating batch of the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR), Hyderabad.
In his third communication within a day, Mishra said the 2026 batch had played no role in any “disturbance or movement” and that the BCI had therefore decided to close the proceedings. He also wished the students well in their careers without repeating his earlier criticism of NALSAR faculty members.
The reversal came after widespread criticism of the initial order which had directed state bar councils not to enrol NALSAR’s 2026 graduates until further orders. The CJP called for Mishra’s resignation while Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan and others questioned the BCI chairman’s handling of the matter.
Mishra said the decision followed feedback from senior advocates, members of the legal community, law students and public spirited citizens. He also urged students to express their views freely while maintaining respect and institutional decorum.
Why the BCI Took Action
The controversy began after around 70 NALSAR students wrote to the university administration asking it to reconsider the invitation extended to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as chief guest for the 2026 convocation.
Mishra responded strongly, warning that students who opposed the CJI could later resort to strikes and boycotts after becoming lawyers, potentially damaging the reputation of the legal profession.
His six-page letter also accused some NALSAR teachers of engaging in “nasty politics” and referred to alleged “groupism” among academic staff. More significantly, he directed state bar councils to defer the enrolment of NALSAR’s 2026 graduates “till further orders”.
The BCI also asked Vice-Chancellor Professor Srikrishna Deva Rao to submit a report within three days identifying those allegedly involved in organising, drafting, circulating or coordinating the campaign. The inquiry was to cover students, faculty members, research scholars, alumni and outsiders.
The council also sought copies of the students’ representation, names of signatories, relevant social media details and records of meetings. Its letter referred to the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Supreme Court’s Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal vs Union of India judgment concerning strikes and boycotts by advocates.
The sweeping nature of the order drew criticism because it potentially affected an entire graduating class over a campaign involving only a section of students.
The CJI Controversy
The dispute unfolded amid wider criticism of CJI Surya Kant over several recent remarks.
Students opposing his invitation referred to his controversial comments describing certain individuals as “parasites” and “cockroaches”. The remarks contributed to the emergence of the CJP. This, in turn, became part of wider public criticism surrounding protests over alleged examination paper leaks.
His later remarks to a lawyer concerning videos showing police action against protesters also drew criticism.
The NALSAR episode was the fourth instance in which an event involving the CJI as chief guest had been cancelled, postponed or otherwise altered. His scheduled appearance at the convocation of Jindal Global Law School in Ahmedabad did not take place. While a Justice H.R. Khanna memorial lecture in New Delhi and a Tata Institute of Social Sciences convocation was also postponed.
NALSAR students have previously taken public positions on political and social issues, including expressing solidarity with protests concerning NEET-UG paper leaks. Its Student Bar Council also supported activist Sonam Wangchuk’s hunger strike and called for the resignation of then education minister Dharmendra Pradhan.
A Rapid Reversal
The BCI softened its position later on August 13, saying that the “vast majority” of NALSAR’s 2026 graduates were innocent and had not intended to disrespect the CJI. It clarified that all students could enrol with state bar councils of their choice.
However, the BCI initially retained the possibility of action against teachers or outsiders allegedly involved in influencing the students and said it would await the vice-chancellor’s report.
By early August 14, Mishra announced that the proceedings had been closed altogether. The latest statement therefore appears to mark a complete withdrawal of the action against the graduating batch.
While it remains unclear whether the allegations against faculty members will be pursued separately, NALSAR’s 2026 graduates no longer face the immediate threat of being denied enrolment as advocates.
