NALSAR Student Bar Council Condemns BCI Enrolment Ban as Unlawful, Demands Chairman Mishra's Apology

The Student Bar Council (SBC) of NALSAR University of Law has issued a sharp condemnation of the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) brief but controversial order barring the university’s 2026 graduating batch from enrolling as advocates, demanding a formal apology from BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra for his remarks accusing faculty and outsiders of instigating students.

In a detailed statement released after midnight on August 14, the SBC welcomed the withdrawal of the circulars but stressed that the episode warranted censure on statutory, constitutional, and first-principles grounds, as well as in light of wider social realities of repression. The controversy erupted after around 70 students wrote to the administration objecting to the reported invitation of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as the convocation chief guest, citing his handling of a plea concerning alleged police excesses during a student protest at Jantar Mantar. Mishra responded on August 13 with a circular directing state bar councils not to enrol any NALSAR 2026 graduate until further orders, while also demanding an inquiry report identifying organisers and alleging “groupism” and “dirty politics” within the university. Following swift backlash, the BCI issued a revised circular that largely rescinded the enrolment restriction but retained the demand for an inquiry. The proceedings were fully closed the next day after the Supreme Court, with CJI Surya Kant himself on the bench, questioned the BCI’s role in what he described as a dialogue between him and the students.

Statutory Overreach and Misplaced Precedent

The SBC argued that the BCI’s actions exceeded the powers granted under the Advocates Act, 1961. Section 7 primarily empowers the BCI to set standards for professional conduct and promote legal education, while Section 24A limits disqualifications from enrolment to convictions for criminal offences—none of which occurred here. “To then direct State Bar Councils to restrict the enrolment of students from the Batch of 2026 does not align with the BCI’s statutory functions,” the statement asserted.

The council also dismissed the BCI’s reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India as “fundamentally misplaced.” That ruling, the SBC noted, concerned the BCI’s disciplinary authority over advocates in the context of strikes obstructing the administration of justice, and did not confer a roving mandate to intervene in university affairs. “The BCI cannot manufacture jurisdiction by citing a judgment that never granted it,” the council declared.

Constitutional Defence of Dissent

Invoking Article 19(1)(a), the SBC reminded the BCI that the right to dissent legitimately and lawfully is integral to freedom of speech and expression, citing Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra and Anita Thakur v. Govt. of J&K , which recognised peaceful protest as a fundamental right. “No institution, including the Supreme Court and the CJI, is beyond legitimate scrutiny in a constitutional democracy,” the statement read. The students rejected the notion that constitutional fidelity requires silence, arguing that “judicial accountability is not the antithesis of judicial independence but one of its essential safeguards.”

Privacy Concerns and Objectionable Language

The SBC strongly objected to the scope of the inquiry initially demanded by the BCI, which sought details of initiators, organisers, social-media administrators, faculty, alumni, and external participants. “Asking for such details is an intrusive violation of privacy, considering that it involves revealing the identities of students, who may face potential long-term consequences,” the council said.

The language of the BCI’s letters was termed “highly objectionable.” References to “groupism” and “dirty politics,” along with allegations that faculty were “misleading, misguiding and instigating students,” were described as “unprofessional, unfounded, and without any substance.” The council accused Mishra of deploying an “anti-national” narrative in which dissent is explained away as external manipulation, demanding a formal apology for the remarks.

Wider Backlash and Demands for Accountability

The SBC’s condemnation has been echoed by over 400 NALSAR alumni in an open letter to Mishra, reminding him that the bar council has no role in regulating free speech on campuses. The satirical Cockroach Janta Party has separately called for Mishra’s resignation. Mishra, who has headed the BCI since 2014 and also serves as a BJP Rajya Sabha MP, sought to lower the temperature after withdrawing the order, stating that the BCI and students share the same goal of protecting young people’s interests. However, the SBC maintained that the unofficial X post withdrawing proceedings did not retract the allegations, and the apology demand remains.

Key Observations from the Statement

  • “The right to dissent legitimately and lawfully is an integral part of the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).”
  • “No institution, including the Supreme Court and the CJI, is beyond legitimate scrutiny in a constitutional democracy.”
  • “Asking for such details is an intrusive violation of privacy, considering that it involves revealing the identities of students, who may face potential long-term consequences.”
  • “The BCI cannot manufacture jurisdiction by citing a judgment that never granted it.”
  • “A university that cannot accommodate dissent ceases to be a university; a legal profession that fears criticism ceases to serve the Constitution.”

The SBC concluded by thanking the NALSAR administration, alumni, and the wider legal fraternity for their solidarity, and invoked the spirit of Independence Day to reaffirm that “constitutional freedoms do not become expendable when they are inconvenient.” The episode has sparked a broader debate over the limits of regulatory authority, student free speech, and the proper role of professional bodies in university affairs.