Condemns BCI Chairman Manan Mishra for Over NALSAR Students
The (BBA) has issued a sharp condemnation of (BCI) Chairman , accusing him of abusing his office by targeting students and demanding his resignation. In a statement approved by its Standing Committee on August 18, the association described Mishra’s August 13 directive against the graduating batch as “uncalled for” and a .
The Controversy Unfolds
The trouble began on , when Mishra directed all not to enroll any student from NALSAR's 2026 graduating batch as advocates. The move came after a section of students opposed the invitation of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as chief guest for the convocation, citing his remarks on NEET student protests in Delhi. Mishra also ordered the NALSAR Vice-Chancellor to submit a report.
Following immediate backlash from senior advocates and bar bodies, Mishra issued a modified communication the same day, dropping the proposed action against students but retaining the inquiry. On August 14, he announced via Twitter that all proceedings were closed. The next day, he issued a letter of apology.
BBA's Strong Condemnation
The BBA's Standing Committee, meeting on August 17 and 18, deliberated the events and released a detailed criticism. The association stated that Mishra's August 13 letter was
"a direct attempt by the Learned Chairman to cause
to the professional careers of students of NALSAR (Passing out batch of 2026)."
It added that the communication was issued
"without regard to the principles governing the
and
"
and that
"a large section of the students were
."
The BBA expressed
"deepest anguish that Mr.
, Senior Advocate, has while occupying the post as Chairman of the
, indulged in issuing Orders and directions against the law students... which do not fall within the purview of the
."
It described the original directive as
"an abuse by him of the office of the Chairman,
."
Apology Called Belated
On Mishra's August 15 apology, the BBA was unequivocal:
"The issuance of an apology by Mr. Mishra on 15 August 2026 is clearly belated and nothing but an attempt to merely assuage the situation."
The association said the apology could not be considered
"an expression of true remorse, since he continues to hold the position as Chairman despite his conduct, when in the fitness of things, he ought to have already resigned."
Support for Institutional Reversal
Despite its strong condemnation of Mishra personally, the BBA welcomed the BCI's eventual decision to close all proceedings against the students. It described the reversal as
"a step in the right direction and a step which restores the faith in the institution of the
, in whom we continue to repose our faith."
The Student Bar Council's Stand
The
had earlier condemned Mishra's initial action, stating it reflected
"the classic 'anti-national' narrative, in which dissent is not engaged with on its merits but is explained away as the work of external actors manipulating impressionable students."
The students demanded an apology, which was eventually issued.
Matter
The controversy is now before the , which is hearing a related petition. Additionally, a writ petition has been filed challenging the legal provisions that allow perpetual continuance of the same individuals in top posts of the BCI and . The outcome is likely to have significant implications for the autonomy of law students and the accountability of bar regulatory bodies.
Key Observations from the BBA Statement
- “The contents of the communication dated 13 August 2026... were a direct attempt by the Learned Chairman to cause to the professional careers of students of NALSAR.”
- “The issuance of the said communication by Mr. Mishra is an abuse by him of the office of the Chairman, .”
- “Such actions of Mr. are strongly condemned.”
- “The apology sought to be tendered by Mr. Mishra... cannot be considered as an expression of true remorse, since he continues to hold the position as Chairman despite his conduct, when in the fitness of things, he ought to have already resigned.”
Implications
The BBA's statement underscores the deep unease within the legal fraternity about the exercise of powers by the head of a statutory regulatory body. It raises fundamental questions about , the , and the scope of the BCI's authority over students. As the Supreme Court takes up the matter, the legal community awaits a verdict that could reshape the balance between institutional authority and individual rights.