NALSAR Students Objected To CJI Surya Kant. Then The BCI Stepped In

The Supreme Court on Friday questioned the Bar Council of India's intervention against NALSAR University's 2026 graduates after the BCI initially directed State Bar Councils not to enrol the entire batch as advocates.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said students had a right to protest peacefully and questioned why the BCI had intervened in a dispute that began with students objecting to his proposed participation as chief guest at NALSAR's convocation.

The BCI has since withdrawn the enrollment restriction and closed the proceedings against the 2026 batch.

So, how did a disagreement over a university convocation invitation escalate into a dispute involving NALSAR, the BCI and the Supreme Court?

How The NALSAR Row Started

The controversy began after a section of students at NALSAR University of Law in Hyderabad objected to CJI Surya Kant being invited as chief guest for the university's 2026 convocation.

The students' objections were linked to remarks made by the CJI during proceedings concerning allegations of police excesses against student protesters in Delhi.

Reports said an initial group of around 70 students submitted a representation. A subsequent representation was reported to have the support of around 450 students across four batches.

The dispute was initially about the proposed participation of the CJI at a university event.

Then the BCI intervened.

Why Did The BCI Step In?

On 13 August, BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra directed State Bar Councils not to enrol students who obtained their law degree from NALSAR in 2026 until further orders.

The BCI also sought an authenticated factual report from NALSAR identifying those allegedly involved in initiating, organising, coordinating or mobilising the campaign opposing the CJI's participation.

It asked the university for copies of representations, petitions, memoranda and other communications relating to the proposed invitation, along with available lists of signatories.

The initial direction covered the entire 2026 graduating batch.

That meant the order did not distinguish, at that stage, between students who had participated in the campaign and those who had not.

CJP Reacts To The BCI's NALSAR Order

The BCI's action also drew a response from the satirical youth movement Cockroach Janta Party, or CJP, founded by Abhijeet Dipke.

The movement's name originated after CJI Surya Kant used the word “cockroaches” during an earlier hearing. Dipke later posted, “What if all the cockroaches come together?”, a phrase that became associated with the CJP.

Following the BCI's action against the NALSAR graduates, Dipke posted on X, “What if all legal cockroaches come together?”

He followed it with another post asking, “Time for Manan Mishra isteefa do? (resign).”

CJP chief spokesperson Saurav Das also criticised the BCI's action, calling it “grossly disproportionate, deeply troubling, and prima facie indefensible.”

Das said, “Students cannot be collectively penalised for expressing dissent over a ceremonial invitation.”

He also called for accountability from the BCI and its chairman.

Why Did The BCI Reverse The Enrolment Order?

The BCI soon changed its position following widespread criticism.

The council modified Mishra's earlier direction and said all NALSAR 2026 graduates would be entitled to enrol with the State Bar Council of their choice.

The council said the vast majority of students were innocent and had not intended to participate in a campaign to disrespect the CJI.

The modified communication initially indicated that an inquiry would continue based on a report from the NALSAR Vice-Chancellor.

So, while the blanket enrolment restriction was withdrawn, the proceedings had not initially been closed.

Manan Mishra Calls The First Order “Hasty”

Speaking to NDTV on 14 August, Mishra acknowledged that the original decision had been taken too quickly.

He said, “It was a hasty decision. The council had detailed deliberations and decided to change the order. The issue now stands closed.”

He also said, “We don't want any confrontation between the Bar and the students.”

Mishra said the council had realised that the order could lead to a clash between students and the judiciary and that it was withdrawn quickly.

Mishra also responded to Dipke and Das, saying, “I want to communicate to Abhijeet Dipke and Sourav Das that our interests are the same as theirs, to protect the rights of the students.”

BCI Later Closed The Proceedings

The BCI subsequently announced that it had decided to close the proceedings against the NALSAR 2026 batch altogether.

The decision followed representations and reactions from senior advocates, members of the Bar, law students and members of the public.

The council concluded that the NALSAR 2026 batch had no role in any “disturbance or movement” and said no further action was required.

Mishra also stressed that students should be able to express their opinions while maintaining “respect and institutional decorum”.

CJI Surya Kant Questions The BCI

The controversy reached the Supreme Court on 14 August.

During the hearing, CJI Surya Kant questioned the BCI's intervention.

He said, “If the students have a cause to protest, they have the right to protest.”

Describing the matter as a dialogue between himself and the students, he asked, “It's a dialogue between students and me. Who are they (BCI) to unnecessarily raise an issue?”

He added, “This is totally uncalled for. BCI has nothing to do with this.”

The CJI also said students should be allowed to raise their voices peacefully and lawfully, even if their views were assumed to be wrong.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi also questioned the BCI's decision-making process.

He asked, “Was BCI convened to take a resolution like that? We want to know.”

The BCI's counsel told the court that the circular had already been withdrawn.

What Did The Supreme Court Order?

The Supreme Court sought a response from the BCI over the controversy.

The court also ordered that no punitive action be taken against NALSAR students or faculty by the BCI or any Bar Council in connection with the incidents referred to in the BCI's letters.

After dictating the order, CJI Surya Kant told the students to obtain their enrolment licences at the earliest and invited them to join the Supreme Court Bar.

“You tell the students, get the licence at the earliest. Join the Supreme Court bar. We will empanel them for legal aid cases, and let them do legal aid,” he said.

Where Does The NALSAR-BCI Row Stand Now?

What began with student objections to a proposed convocation invitation escalated into a dispute involving NALSAR, the BCI and the Supreme Court.

The BCI initially directed State Bar Councils not to enrol the entire NALSAR 2026 batch. It then withdrew that restriction and later closed the proceedings against the batch.

The Supreme Court has now sought the BCI's response and granted interim protection against punitive action in connection with the incidents referred to in the BCI's letters.

For NALSAR's 2026 graduates, the BCI proceedings have been closed. The Supreme Court's intervention means the legal dispute surrounding the BCI's actions is now also before the court.

TL;DR | News At Glance

What started the NALSAR controversy?
A section of NALSAR students objected to CJI Surya Kant being invited as chief guest for the university's convocation.

What did the BCI initially do?
It directed State Bar Councils not to enrol NALSAR's 2026 graduates as advocates until further orders.

Why did the BCI reverse the decision?
After deliberations, the council said the vast majority of the batch were innocent and should not suffer for the alleged actions of a few.

What did Manan Mishra say?
He called the original decision “hasty” and later announced that the proceedings had been closed.

What did CJI Surya Kant say?
He questioned the BCI's intervention and said students had a right to protest peacefully and lawfully.

What happened in the Supreme Court?
The court sought the BCI's response and ordered interim protection against punitive action against NALSAR students and faculty over the incidents mentioned in the BCI's letters.