‘Who Is BCI to Come Between Students and Me?’: CJI Condemns NALSAR Enrolment Freeze
The Supreme Court on Friday strongly condemned the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) now-withdrawn circular that directed all State Bar Councils not to enrol any 2026 batch graduate of NALSAR University of Law as advocates, saying students have a right to protest.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant said the BCI had no business playing havoc with the futures of NALSAR students, adding that he himself had been a student, and a political one at that. “Who is the BCI to come between the students and me? The Bar Council of India has no business to order such inquiries against students,” the CJI said categorically.
The controversy stems from a student campaign at NALSAR opposing the invitation extended to the CJI to be the chief guest at the university’s convocation. The students’ ire draws from the CJI’s reported comments, in which he allegedly used the term “cockroach” while referring to youths. These reports have not been independently verified by this newspaper.
In its initial communication, which was later withdrawn, the BCI had directed State Bar Councils to halt the enrolment of NALSAR’s 2026 batch graduates until further orders, pending an inquiry into the campaign. The withdrawal followed widespread criticism from legal experts and student bodies, who viewed the directive as an overreach of the BCI’s powers.
On Friday, the Supreme Court ordered that no coercive actions would be taken against NALSAR students and administrators on the basis of the incidents mentioned in the BCI circulars issued on August 13. The court also sought an explanation in the form of an affidavit from the BCI about the issuance of these circulars.
Senior advocate K. Parameshwar, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the BCI had no disciplinary jurisdiction over students and matters that occur within the four walls of a university. He said the actions taken by the BCI amounted to a threat to choke the future and livelihoods of students. He further questioned whether the circulars were issued after a resolution passed by the full BCI or whether it was an initiative of the BCI chairperson, senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra.
The court agreed with the submission and directed the BCI to clarify this point. Advocate Radhika Gautam, appearing for the BCI, agreed to obtain instructions and file the affidavit. The court issued notice on the petition and posted the case for hearing next week.
The order was passed on an oral mentioning made by Mr. Parameshwar for an early hearing of the petition against the BCI. The development assumes significance as it underscores the limits of a statutory body’s authority and the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the rights of students. The Supreme Court’s intervention makes it clear that students’ peaceful protests and their right to express dissent are protected under the Constitution, and that regulatory bodies like the BCI cannot act against students in a manner that jeopardises their careers.
