The Supreme Court on Friday sharply criticised the Bar Council of India for threatening action against NALSAR University of Law students who opposed Chief Justice of India Surya Kant’s participation in their convocation, with the CJI calling the regulator’s intervention “totally uncalled for”.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana made clear that students had a right to protest peacefully and that professional regulators should not penalise them for expressing their views. The court also directed that no punitive action be taken against NALSAR students or faculty members over the episode.
The matter was brought before the bench by senior advocate K Parameshwar. The court issued notice to the Bar Council and gave it two weeks to file a response, despite being informed that the council had already withdrawn the controversial directions. Its interim protection extended to students and faculty of national law universities and other law universities against punitive action arising from such intervention.
Chief Justice Surya Kant questioned why the Bar Council had entered what he described as a dialogue between students and himself. He said peaceful expression by students must be permitted even when their views might be considered mistaken. The CJI also referred to his own participation in student activities during his university days while stressing the importance of allowing young people to raise their voices lawfully.
The judicial intervention followed a fast-moving controversy after Bar Council of India chairman Manan Kumar Mishra on Thursday directed State Bar Councils not to enrol graduates of NALSAR’s 2026 batch as advocates until further orders. The direction was linked to a campaign by students opposing the proposed participation of the CJI at the university’s convocation.
The council had also asked NALSAR to submit an authenticated report identifying people involved in initiating, organising or mobilising the campaign. It sought copies of representations submitted to the university and details concerning the possible involvement of students, faculty members, alumni and outsiders. A final decision had initially been contemplated for August 19.
The blanket enrolment restriction triggered immediate criticism within the legal fraternity. Bar Council member Manoj Kumar opposed the measure, describing the threat to deny enrolment to an entire graduating batch as arbitrary. Within hours, the council reversed the restriction and allowed all 2026 graduates to seek enrolment with State Bar Councils of their choice.
The council initially retained its proposed inquiry after lifting the enrolment bar, saying most students had not participated in the campaign. Mishra later announced that the proceedings themselves would be closed and that no further action was required. He said the decision followed representations and reactions from senior advocates, Bar members, law students and others.
NALSAR Vice-Chancellor Professor Srikrishna Deva Rao had meanwhile indicated that the university would examine whether the Bar Council possessed the statutory authority to demand such an inquiry under the university’s governance framework before responding to it.
The dispute originated in objections by NALSAR students to having Chief Justice Surya Kant associated with the convocation following remarks made during proceedings concerning allegations of police action against student protesters at Jantar Mantar in Delhi. Around 70 students from the outgoing 2026 batch submitted the initial representation, while roughly 380 students from subsequent batches later expressed support.
Their campaign questioned the CJI’s handling of an attempt on July 22 to secure an urgent hearing over alleged police excesses during student protests. The students subsequently asked the university authorities to reconsider the choice of chief guest, turning what began as a campus representation into a wider debate about dissent, institutional autonomy and the limits of regulatory authority over law students.
The CJI sought to remove any professional consequences arising from the dispute, telling the students to proceed with enrolment and encouraging them to join the Supreme Court Bar. He also suggested that they could be empanelled for legal-aid work, signalling that disagreement with a judge should not become an impediment to entering the profession.
