Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, in sharp words, criticised the Bar Council of India’s directive that told State Bar Councils not to enroll the 2026 graduating batch from NALSAR University of Law in Hyderabad as advocates—an order linked to student opposition to his participation in the university’s convocation. In remarks reported after a plea challenging the circular was mentioned for urgent listing, the Chief Justice said the matter was between him and the students, and that the Bar Council had no role in interfering in that exchange.
“Absolutely uncalled for. I myself was a student who was actively engaged in protests. It’s a dialogue between me and students; who are they (BCI) to interfere,” the CJI was quoted as underscoring. His observations came in the context of an institutional dispute that spilled into professional regulation: the Bar Council had attempted to influence who could enter the advocate rolls based on alleged involvement in a campaign against his convocation invite.
The controversy began when the Bar Council issued communications to State Bar Councils instructing them not to enrol graduates from NALSAR’s 2026 batch while the matter was under scrutiny. The stated trigger was a campaign—aimed at the university’s invitation to the Chief Justice—that, according to regulators, involved students who had organised or mobilised opposition to his attendance. The Bar Council’s approach was described by critics as exceptional and intrusive, drawing immediate legal pushback from members of the profession.
As reported in one of the accounts, the Supreme Court Bar Association’s President and senior advocate Vikas Singh denounced the move, characterising it as “arbitrary, illegal and disproportionate.” The framing reflected a broader concern within the legal community: that professional eligibility and registration processes should not become leverage in a dispute between the judiciary and student bodies.
However, the order did not last. Hours after issuing the directive, the Bar Council of India retracted it through a fresh communication. According to reporting, the withdrawal was communicated to the Hyderabad-based institution after the earlier message—imposing a temporary enrolment bar on 2026 graduates tied to the boycott campaign—was already in circulation. The sudden shift was described as dramatic, suggesting that the regulator recalibrated its position amid mounting scrutiny and the CJI’s remarks.
In the revised position, the Bar Council indicated that it had “thoroughly discussed and deliberated” its earlier step and subsequently decided to withdraw the communication. The legal controversy therefore moved from an immediate enrolment embargo toward a pending inquiry—one that would focus on fact-finding around who initiated, organised, or coordinated the protest campaign.
Separate reporting described how the Bar Council had sought a report from NALSAR’s Vice-Chancellor regarding individuals alleged to have been principally instrumental in the campaign. While the inquiry was pending, the original instruction had prevented any 2026 NALSAR graduate from being enrolled by any State Bar Council. That interim directive has now been withdrawn, but the underlying question of responsibility for the protest has not disappeared.
The student campaign at the heart of the dispute involved a substantial segment of the law school. The Indian Express reported that around 450 students out of NALSAR’s approximately 1,400 students had started the opposition movement against inviting CJI Surya Kant to the convocation. The protest was linked to remarks the Chief Justice made earlier in the month while hearing a petition concerning alleged police excesses during the NEET protests in Delhi. Those remarks were reported as: “Please don’t waste our time. We don’t have time to watch these videos.”
From the standpoint of the students and the campaign, the opposition to the invite was a reaction to the CJI’s reported comments. From the standpoint of the Bar Council, the focus shifted to governance of entry into the profession and the alleged organisers of the protest. That difference in framing is what brought the Supreme Court ecosystem, university student politics, and professional regulation into direct collision.
In the procedural thread that unfolded, the Chief Justice’s comments were made after a plea challenging the Bar Council’s circular was brought up before the court for urgent listing. The context suggests that legal accountability for the circular’s consequences—especially the impact on prospective advocates—had become a pressing issue for petitioners seeking judicial relief. The CJI’s stated view—that it is “between me and students”—stood in contrast to the Bar Council’s attempt to treat involvement in a protest as a basis for temporarily denying enrolment.
As the issue developed, reporting indicated that the Bar Council had requested NALSAR to distinguish between those who merely signed or supported representations and those who organised or coordinated the opposition. Such a distinction suggests the regulator was trying to narrow the net of alleged “principally instrumental” involvement, rather than penalising all students indiscriminately. Still, the original communication was broad enough to touch any 2026 graduate being enrolled, which is part of why it triggered criticism from senior lawyers.
The withdrawal, while removing an immediate professional eligibility barrier, did not end the inquiry. The Bar Council’s approach, as described in different accounts, involved awaiting a report from NALSAR’s Vice-Chancellor, with the matter framed as requiring verification of the campaign’s drivers. Other reporting also stated that a final decision would be taken after receiving the inquiry report.
Meanwhile, the episode has highlighted how quickly institutional disagreements can turn into procedural actions affecting career pathways. With the Bar Council now retracting the enrolment ban while continuing to seek information from the university, the immediate harm to NALSAR’s 2026 batch appears to have eased, but questions about the permissible boundaries of regulatory intervention remain.
For now, the legal dispute’s centre of gravity has shifted: from a near-term ban on enrolment to a fact-finding process and renewed debate on whether a professional regulator can—and should—link advocate enrolment decisions to participation in student protest actions involving a top judicial figure. The CJI’s remarks, along with the Bar Council’s retraction, ensure that the matter remains under the public spotlight even as the immediate directive has been withdrawn.
Sources: NDTV’s report on the Chief Justice’s remarks and the immediate context of the challenged circularNews Source; Times of India’s account of the Bar Council’s rapid withdrawal and its stated deliberationsNews Source; The Indian Express coverage of the campaign scale and the Bar Council’s request for a report from the Vice-ChancellorNews Source.
SHOP AMAZON BEST SELLERS, CLICK TO BUY FROM AMAZON.
SHOP AMAZON BEST SELLERS, CLICK TO BUY FROM AMAZON.
