Back
NALSAR Student Bar Council Challenges Decision to Cancel NLSIU Convocation Over Re-Invitation Demand
Hyderabad, August 28 – has fired a pointed salvo at the circumstances surrounding the cancellation of the ’s (NLSIU) convocation, squarely questioning the source of a demand that graduating students issue a public letter “re-inviting” the Chief Justice of India.
In a strongly-worded statement of solidarity with NLSIU’s Batch of 2026, the Council condemned the imposition of an additional condition that forced students to choose between a once-in-a-lifetime milestone and their principled act of dissent. It also warned of a “” on future student activism.
A Demand That Changed Everything
The controversy is rooted in an earlier standoff between NALSAR students and the (BCI), when the BCI threatened to block the enrollment of NALSAR’s 2026 graduates after the students objected to Chief Justice Surya Kant’s presence at their convocation. NLSIU students and alumni rallied behind their counterparts, with over 700 members of the NLSIU community signing a statement opposing the participation of both the CJI and BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra at their own upcoming convocation.
After a meeting with students, the CJI, in his capacity as NLSIU’s , agreed to a vote on whether the convocation could proceed with his presence, provided there were no protests or disruptions. On , the Batch of 2026 voted in favor of attending the ceremony, also assured that Mishra would not attend.
But just two days later, the terms changed. Students were told they would also need to issue a public letter “re-inviting” the CJI to the convocation—a condition the NALSAR Student Bar Council says was never part of the original agreement. NLSIU’s administration reportedly did not request such a letter, according to the Council. When students refused to comply, the administration abruptly cancelled the convocation, citing “unavoidable circumstances.”
Students Pushed to a Painful Choice
“It is particularly concerning, and deserves condemnation, that students were asked to issue a public letter of ‘re-invitation’ to the CJI—a condition added only subsequent to the said agreement,” the Council’s statement read.
The Council noted that students had already agreed to the CJI’s presence as Chancellor, and had made extensive arrangements for family members to attend. “Snatching this opportunity from students, which would have enabled them to savour this moment with family and friends, is cruel,” it added.
By linking the letter to the convocation, the Council argued, students were placed in an untenable position: give up their right to dissent or lose the event marking years of hard work. “Such imposition of an onerous burden on the graduating cohort will have only one consequence: a on future acts of dissent and solidarity.”
CJI’s Office Under Scrutiny
The Council stopped short of directly accusing any party, noting that “the actual sequence of events can only be clarified by direct stakeholders.” However, it stated categorically that NLSIU’s administration had not asked for the public re-invitation. This naturally points to the office of the Chief Justice as the source of the demand.
“If such request of a ‘public letter’ was made by the office of the CJI, it is incredibly unfortunate as the office of the CJI apparently preferred creating suitable public discourse in the interest of their office over the interests of the students,” the statement observed.
The Council drew a sharp contrast with the CJI’s own words during the proceedings in the earlier BCI matter. The Chief Justice had then declared that students “have the right to protest,” and that peaceful dissent should be allowed. The Court had also restrained punitive action against students and faculty. “In this context, the subsequent requirement of a public statement inviting the Chief Justice, and the linking of that requirement to the holding of the convocation, is a matter of great concern,” the Council said.
A Call for Transparency
The Council criticized NLSIU’s administration for acting with “lightning speed” to cancel the event while failing to explore alternatives such as postponement. “The administration … failed the standards of transparency expected from a legal institution,” it stated.
Ultimately, the NALSAR Student Bar Council saluted the “principled stance” of the NLSIU Batch of 2026 for rejecting the re-invitation demand and standing by their earlier act of dissent. It expressed appreciation for the way the students “conducted themselves throughout these events—especially under tremendous pressure.”
The statement has been endorsed by 111 alumni of , underscoring the deep solidarity between the two premier law schools. As the legal community watches closely, the key question remains unanswered: who exactly demanded that students publicly re-invite the Chief Justice, and why?
