'Who is BCI to Interfere?': Supreme Court on BCI's Notice Against NALSAR Protest
CJI Surya Kant rebukes Bar Council of India for interfering in NALSAR students’ right to protest.
advertisement
The Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, strongly criticised the Bar Council of India’s actions against NALSAR University of Law students following their protest regarding the CJI’s participation in the university’s convocation. The Court made it clear that students have the right to protest peacefully and that the BCI had no authority to interfere in matters between students and the Chief Justice. The BCI’s initial directive to halt enrolment of the 2026 batch was subsequently withdrawn after judicial intervention and public backlash.
According to Live Law, Chief Justice Surya Kant stated that the BCI was “unnecessarily taking action” and emphasised that students have a lawful right to protest. He questioned the BCI’s involvement, asserting, “Who are they to unnecessarily raise an issue? This is totally uncalled for. BCI has nothing to do with this.” The Supreme Court bench, including Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, issued an interim order preventing any punitive action against NALSAR students or faculty by the BCI or any Bar Council.
As reported by The Hindu, the Supreme Court condemned the now-withdrawn BCI circular that directed State Bar Councils to halt enrolment of NALSAR’s 2026 graduates. The Court questioned whether the BCI had the authority to order such inquiries and sought an affidavit from the BCI explaining the issuance of these circulars. Senior advocate K. Parameshwar argued that the BCI had no disciplinary jurisdiction over university students.
Statements from the bench highlighted that the controversy originated from a letter by NALSAR students protesting the invitation of CJI Surya Kant as convocation chief guest. The BCI’s first circular barred the entire batch from enrolment, but this was reversed within hours, though an inquiry into the protest organisers was initially retained. The Supreme Court made it clear that no punitive action should be taken against any NALSAR student or faculty.
“Even if they are wrong, assuming, they have the right to protest. Who can stop them? So long as they are lawfully and peacefully raising a voice, they must be heard. Why Bar Council or any other body should interfere?” CJI Surya Kant remarked.
As highlighted by Deccan Herald, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the BCI and directed that no punitive action be taken against students or faculty. The BCI later modified its decision, allowing enrolment of the 2026 graduates and stating that the “vast majority” of students were innocent.
In the middle of the controversy, further judicial observations reiterated that the matter was strictly between the students and the Chief Justice. The bench restrained the BCI and all state bar councils from taking any punitive or criminal action against students or faculty of any national law university over the incident.
Judicial scrutiny intensified as the Supreme Court took on board a petition seeking to restrain the BCI from issuing similar directives in the future. The bench directed the BCI to file a counter-affidavit within two weeks and reaffirmed that students’ right to protest must be protected.
“We are with you. This is absolutely uncalled for. They had no business to interfere. The students have written a letter to me, and it is between me and the students. There is a dialogue between us,” CJI Surya Kant stated.
Coverage revealed that BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra dropped all proceedings against the 2026 batch after considering representations from senior advocates, Bar members, students, and the public. Mishra acknowledged that the batch had no role in any disturbance and emphasised the importance of expressing opinions with respect and institutional decorum.
At the end of the proceedings, statements from the BCI chairman indicated that the Council’s interests aligned with protecting students’ rights, following the withdrawal of the enrolment freeze and closure of all related inquiries.
Note: This article is produced using AI-assisted tools and is based on publicly available information. It has been reviewed by The Quint's editorial team before publishing.