In a developing controversy involving NALSAR University of Law, the Bar Council of India (BCI) has swung from a punitive order to a reversal, following sharp criticism from legal stakeholders and student groups. The dispute centres on the institution’s upcoming convocation arrangements traditionally involving the Chief Justice of India as chief guest, and on complaints that remarks made by CJI Surya Kant during a Supreme Court hearing were being treated as politically consequential.
According to reporting explained in the Hindustan Times, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president Vikas Singh described the BCI’s initial action as illegal and “wholly arbitrary,” arguing it was effectively designed to pressure law students into not exercising fundamental rights. In his statement, Singh said the direction was disproportionate and unsustainable, characterising it as intimidation aimed at students seeking freedom of speech and expression. The SCBA’s objection added institutional weight to concerns that professional regulators were using accreditation mechanisms to influence expression and protest-related grievances.
At the centre of the escalation was the BCI’s directive, issued after representatives at NALSAR mounted objections to the CJI being invited as chief guest for the university’s convocation. As described in the verified reports, a group of final-year LLB students raised a representation on July 23, with students from other batches later supporting it. The students linked their objection to remarks the CJI made during a Supreme Court hearing concerning alleged police violence against student protesters in Delhi, arguing the statements raised issues requiring accountability or reconsideration of ceremonial recognition.
The BCI’s response came swiftly. In its first communication, the council directed state Bar Councils not to enrol graduates of NALSAR’s 2026 batch and sought a report identifying those behind the campaign. The move, reported in one of the verified accounts, was framed as a response to the controversy around the convocation invite and its surrounding agitation, which had drawn attention to a constitutional functionary’s public statements. The university, meanwhile, had not finalised the convocation date, though the CJI had historically been invited as the chief guest.
Within hours, however, the BCI began to back away from the most stringent elements of its earlier stance. The Indian Express reported that after it initially ordered a bar on enrolment for the 2026 graduates, the BCI withdrew the directive. In its subsequent communication, the council said the “vast majority” of NALSAR students graduating in 2026 were innocent and had not been inclined to participate in a “move of disrespect.” The reversal also underscored the regulator’s view that conduct crossing into organised coercion or intimidation is different from lawful expression—an internal distinction that became pivotal to how the BCI recalibrated its assessment of student behaviour.
In this recalibration, professional ethics formed part of the BCI’s reasoning. As reported by the Indian Express, the council noted that advocates are expected to behave with dignity and show respectful attitudes towards courts. It also described a “material distinction” between legitimate expression and conduct involving organised intimidation, coercion, personal vilification, disruption, obstruction, or an organised call for boycott directed against a constitutional functionary or an institutional programme. Those lines appear to reflect an effort by the regulator to constrain its response to conduct it considers ethically and professionally unacceptable, while avoiding collective punishment of an entire graduating class.
The reversal did not end the controversy; it shifted its shape. The Hindustan Times account explains that the BCI initially said its factual inquiry into the controversy would continue but then withdrew that decision as well, marking another turn in the regulator’s approach. In a late-night post on X referenced in the Hindustan Times report, BCI functionary or representative Mishra stated that the council had decided to end all proceedings against the 2026 graduating batch after taking into account representations and feedback from senior advocates, members of the Bar, law students, and members of the public.
The same report quotes that the BCI was satisfied the 2026 batch had no role in any “disturbance or movement.” It also included a claim—presented in the fresh letter—that the council had received reports from “reliable sources” suggesting teachers and outsiders had been involved in instigating students described as “innocent.” That explanation, while offering a rationale for ending proceedings, also highlights the regulator’s reliance on external accounts to redefine responsibility within the protest ecosystem.
SCBA’s response remained sharply critical of the BCI’s earlier framing. In the Hindustan Times narrative, the SCBA alleged the initial direction sought to pressure students and characterised it as illegal and disproportionate. In addition, the SCBA’s slams were paired with an insistence that students should not be trapped by regulatory gatekeeping—stating that all students would be entitled to enrol with the State Bar Councils of their choice. That point connected the procedural reversal to a broader question: whether institutions can regulate professional entry in a manner that effectively punishes participation in expression-driven campaigns.
Notably, other senior legal voices backed the BCI’s later decision. The Indian Express report includes support from Senior Advocate S Basavaraj, who argued that advocacy carries social responsibility while insisting that freedom to practise law is not absolute. Basavaraj also said the controversy around CJI remarks involved an alleged deliberate attempt to twist his words and add political colour, suggesting that the regulator’s shift aimed to avoid conflating contested interpretation of statements with wrongdoing by students themselves. Such support indicates the BCI’s reversal found at least some grounding among senior counsel in the sector.
For students and legal institutions, the practical impact of the BCI’s U-turn is immediate: the end of proceedings against the 2026 graduating batch and the assurance that students should be able to enrol with state bar councils of their choice. Yet the wider implications remain unresolved—particularly how regulators assess responsibility when student objections to a constitutional functionary’s remarks escalate into formal professional consequences. As the convocation date is not yet finalised, the debate over the chief guest invite will likely continue, but the BCI’s reversal marks a clear procedural retreat from collective punitive measures.
SHOP AMAZON BEST SELLERS, CLICK TO BUY FROM AMAZON.
SHOP AMAZON BEST SELLERS, CLICK TO BUY FROM AMAZON.
