Back
NALSAR students urge reconsideration of CJI Surya Kant as convocation chief guest
In a striking display of civic engagement, students from have formally requested their institution to reconsider the selection of Chief Justice Surya Kant as the chief guest for the upcoming convocation. The representation, submitted on to the Vice-Chancellor, Registrar, and faculty, challenges the CJI's public conduct during a hearing concerning alleged police atrocities against protesters at the "Chalo Sansad" march at Jantar Mantar on . With the convocation date still unannounced, the students sought to have their voices heard before any final decision is made.
The Objection: A Dismissive Judicial Response
The students' primary grievance stems from the response of a bench led by the Chief Justice when a lawyer mentioned an urgent hearing on . According to the representation, the CJI told the counsel,
"Don't waste our time, and don't waste your time."
When the lawyer offered to present video evidence of the alleged police action, the CJI reportedly replied,
"We are not interested in videos; we don't have time to watch."
Such statements, the students argue, reflect a concerning indifference to serious allegations of police brutality against citizens exercising their right to protest.
The representation also references a separate letter petition already pending before the CJI, seeking intervention in the police action. That petition cites injuries to over 170 protesters, including women and children, and potential violations of the safeguards laid down in —a landmark case governing arrest procedures. The students contend that the CJI's dismissive remarks undermine the judiciary's role as the guardian of constitutional rights and access to justice.
The University's Values at Stake
In their representation, the students emphasized that a convocation should reflect the university's core values, including
"a commitment to constitutional rights, access to justice, and reasoned engagement with grievances."
They argued that receiving degrees from a dignitary whose recent public conduct appeared dismissive of credible allegations of police brutality would be inconsistent with these ideals. The students urged the university to consult the graduating batch before extending any invitation, and they remain open to dialogue through student representatives or other appropriate channels.
The representation was reportedly signed by around 70 students from the 2026 graduating batch. Two days later, an additional 380 students from the 2027 to 2031 batches extended their support, amplifying the call for reconsideration. As of now, NALSAR has not announced a convocation date or confirmed the CJI's participation, leaving room for the university to heed the students' request.
Legal Implications and the Judiciary's Reputation
This episode raises significant questions about judicial demeanor and the perception of impartiality. While judges are expected to manage court time efficiently, dismissing allegations of police excesses without engaging with evidence may be viewed as a failure to uphold the very principles enshrined in the . The students' invocation of DK Basu highlights the importance of procedural safeguards, and their call underscores the public's expectation that the judiciary will protect fundamental rights even in politically charged situations.
Legal analysts suggest that this incident could influence how law schools, which are supposed to instill constitutional values, approach the selection of ceremonial guests. It also underscores the growing willingness of students to hold public officials—including judges—accountable for their actions, reflecting a broader trend of civic activism. The students' stance is not just about a convocation; it is a statement about the kind of legal profession they aspire to join.
Impact on Legal Education and the Bar
The NALSAR students' protest may have ripple effects across legal academia. Law schools often invite senior judges as role models, but this incident shows that credibility is not automatic. Students are increasingly discerning about the character of those they honor. This could prompt universities to more carefully vet potential speakers, ensuring alignment with institutional values. Moreover, it sends a message to the judiciary that public perception matters, and that dismissive conduct can tarnish the image of the highest office.
For the legal profession, this episode serves as a reminder that judges are not immune to criticism. The way they handle emergency petitions and interact with counsel can shape public trust in the judicial system. The CJI's remarks, while perhaps intended to manage a crowded docket, risk being interpreted as a lack of concern for human rights. Legal experts note that access to justice is not merely about technical procedures; it also involves a willingness to listen to grievances, especially when they involve allegations of state violence.
Conclusion
The NALSAR students' representation is a powerful example of how future lawyers are internalizing constitutional ethics. By seeking reconsideration of the CJI as convocation chief guest, they are not just making a symbolic protest; they are calling for consistency between judicial conduct and the values of justice, equality, and human dignity. As the university deliberates, the broader legal community watches closely, aware that this decision could set a precedent for how academic institutions engage with judicial luminaries. Whether the CJI's participation is ultimately withdrawn or not, the students have already made a compelling case for the judiciary to remain accessible, patient, and responsive to the rights of citizens.
