CJI Slams BCI Over NALSAR Student Protest, Upholds Right to Dissent

In a significant development that underscored the fundamental right to protest and questioned the authority of a legal regulatory body, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant vehemently criticized the Bar Council of India's (BCI) action against students of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad. The controversy began when approximately 450 outgoing students of NALSAR opposed inviting CJI Surya Kant as the chief guest for their upcoming convocation. Their objection stemmed from the CJI's alleged refusal to grant an early hearing to a letter petition seeking an inquiry into purported police excesses during the 'Sansad Chalo' protest march organized by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) on July 20. Reacting swiftly, on August 13, 2026, BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra issued a circular that stirred considerable outrage within the legal community and on social media. The directive instructed all state bar councils not to enrol NALSAR's 2026 graduating batch as advocates until further orders. The BCI's rationale for this unprecedented move was an ongoing inquiry into what it termed an 'organized campaign' to oppose the CJI's participation. The Council also alleged the presence of 'groupism and dirty politics' among some academic staff who were purportedly 'misleading, instigating and misguiding the students.' However, the BCI's stringent order was met with immediate and widespread condemnation, leading to a rapid reversal of its stance. Within hours of its issuance, on the same day, August 13, 2026, the BCI withdrew the controversial directive. In its revised communication, the BCI stated that the 'vast majority' of the 2026 graduates were 'innocent' and should not be made to suffer for the actions of a few. While the BCI initially indicated that an inquiry into those 'principally instrumental' in the campaign would continue, it subsequently announced the closure of all proceedings against the students. The Supreme Court took cognizance of the matter on August 14, 2026, where a bench led by CJI Surya Kant, alongside Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, critically assessed the BCI's intervention. CJI Surya Kant strongly disapproved of the BCI's actions, calling them 'absolutely uncalled for' and asserting that students possess a fundamental right to peacefully protest. He emphasized that the issue was a 'dialogue between students and me' and questioned the BCI's authority to interfere in such a matter, stating, 'Who are they to unnecessarily raise an issue? This is totally uncalled for. BCI has nothing to do with this.' The CJI even reflected on his own student days, noting his active involvement in student activities and reiterating that even if students' views are perceived as 'wrong,' they retain the right to express them lawfully and peacefully. The Supreme Court proceeded to issue formal notice to the BCI on a writ petition challenging its directives, demanding a counter-affidavit within two weeks. Crucially, the Court issued an interim order, staying any punitive or coercive action against NALSAR students or faculty by the BCI or any State Bar Council in connection with the incidents. Further, CJI Surya Kant extended an invitation to the NALSAR graduates, welcoming them to enrol without delay and join the Supreme Court Bar, even suggesting their empanelment for legal aid cases as a 'befitting answer to all those who caused impediment in their professional career.' This incident also reignited calls for the resignation of BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, particularly from groups like the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP). CJP co-convener Saurav Das explicitly demanded Mishra's resignation, stating that 'moral responsibility commands that Manan Kumar Mishra resigns.' The entire episode has highlighted pertinent questions regarding the extent of regulatory power held by professional bodies and the importance of safeguarding the freedom of speech and expression, especially within academic institutions.

Frequently Asked Questions

Read Full Story on Quick Digest