Back
NLSIU Bengaluru Cancels Convocation After Students Reject Demand to Invite Chief Justice Surya Kant
The , Bengaluru, has called off its 34th Annual Convocation scheduled for , after graduating students refused to issue a public statement inviting Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as the ceremony’s chief guest. The cancellation—announced on under the terse explanation of “unavoidable circumstances”—marks an unprecedented escalation in a controversy that has rocked legal academia for weeks, raising fundamental questions about institutional autonomy, student dissent, and the limits of executive power within law universities.
The convocation was to be presided over by CJI Surya Kant, who serves as NLSIU’s Chancellor and traditionally awards degrees at the event. However, more than 700 members of the NLSIU community—including 165 graduating students, 409 current students, and 128 alumni—had signed a statement objecting to his presence alongside Chairman . The objections stemmed from a series of events that began with CJI Surya Kant’s reported remark comparing unemployed young lawyers to “cockroaches,” a comment that spawned the satirical “Cockroach Janata Party” protests at Jantar Mantar.
From NALSAR to NLSIU: A Ripple Effect
The controversy first erupted at in Hyderabad, where students and faculty opposed CJI Surya Kant’s proposed attendance at their convocation. On , BCI Chairman issued a circular halting the enrollment of NALSAR’s 2026 graduating batch with the —a move widely condemned as punitive and the . The BCI swiftly reversed its decision after a public outcry, but the damage was done.
NLSIU students, watching from Bengaluru, issued a solidarity statement on condemning the BCI’s action as “a direct attack on the fundamental right to free speech and expression guaranteed under .” The statement also expressed “strong disapproval” of CJI Surya Kant attending NLSIU’s convocation, citing the same concerns over his alleged condescension toward young lawyers. The students demanded an unconditional apology from the BCI to the NALSAR community.
A Meeting, a Vote, and a Sudden Demand
According to a detailed timeline shared by graduating students, NLSIU had formally invited them to the convocation on . But after the solidarity statement, the university informed the batches on that the CJI, in his capacity as Chancellor, wished to meet with them personally to understand their position. A small group of students was flown to Delhi for a 90-minute meeting with the Chief Justice.
Following that meeting, the graduating batches were asked to vote on a single proposition: whether they would attend a convocation with the CJI present, under the condition of no protest or disruption. The alternative was outright cancellation. On , a majority of students voted in favor, and they were assured that BCI Chairman Mishra would not attend. The option of holding the convocation without the CJI or permitting individual expression was never offered.
Then, on , the terms changed. The students were told they must also issue a public statement formally inviting the Chief Justice—a condition that had never been mentioned before. Moreover, the statement would be vetted by the university, and the students were prohibited from mentioning that Mishra would be absent. The four graduating batches deliberated again. The B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) programme voted against issuing the invite, citing the suddenness of the demand, the lack of consistency, and the restriction on acknowledging Mishra’s absence. Without full consensus among all batches, the university cancelled the convocation on .
One student, speaking on condition of anonymity, told media: “Many people felt that issuing such a statement would be a retraction of the statement expressing solidarity with the NALSAR students. But for many students cancellation of the convocation was also about finances and parents. For many first-generation learners, it’s a big deal. People had made travel arrangements.”
Legal and Institutional Implications
The NLSIU convocation cancellation is not an isolated event. In the same month, the postponed its convocation and replaced CJI Surya Kant with another chief guest. in Sonepat also changed its arrangements after the Chief Justice declined the invitation. NALSAR’s convocation remains in limbo.
From a legal standpoint, the controversy implicates multiple dimensions. First, the BCI’s circular—which it later withdrew—raised serious questions about the Council’s powers under the Advocates Act. Legal experts have noted that withholding enrollment as a punitive measure for student speech likely violates both the Act and constitutional guarantees. The NLSIU students’ statement labeled the BCI’s action a “witch-hunt.”
Second, the demand for a public statement inviting the CJI—after students had already agreed to his presence—appears to be an attempt to coerce a retraction of the earlier solidarity statement. Students argued that issuing such an invite would be seen as an endorsement of the CJI’s presence and a repudiation of their original position. As one student noted, “Fair criticism of a public official is being treated in such a manner. This is a wake-up call.”
Third, the incident highlights the tension between institutional hierarchy and student autonomy in law schools. The CJI, as Chancellor, holds significant symbolic and administrative power. Yet several students pointed out that the CJI could have deputed another judge to confer degrees—a well-established precedent. Justice Surya Kant himself attended on behalf of the then-CJI Gavai last year, and earlier, CJI Lahoti deputed Justice Hegde. The refusal to do so, students argued, was “disproportionate and meant to punish.”
Impact on Legal Education and the Profession
For the legal community, the NLSIU episode is a stark reminder of the fragility of academic freedom in India’s top law schools. The graduating batch of 2026 will now receive their degrees —a cold end to years of rigorous study. Many students and their families had already booked travel and accommodation for the September 12 ceremony.
The broader impact may be chilling. The BCI’s initial overreach and the subsequent chain of cancellations signal that dissent against high judicial and regulatory figures carries real consequences. Law students—the future members of the Bar and Bench—are being taught a lesson about the limits of protest. At the same time, the solidarity expressed across institutions (NALSAR, NLSIU, TISS, Jindal) suggests a growing consciousness among students about their rights under the Constitution.
Looking Ahead
The NLSIU convocation’s cancellation is not merely a logistical failure; it is a constitutional flashpoint. The students’ core demand—that a convocation should celebrate achievement without requiring a public disavowal of earlier dissent—touches the heart of free expression. The university, caught between the Chancellor’s insistence and student resistance, chose to cancel rather than accommodate.
As one graduating student remarked: “The CJI always had the option of nominating someone else. This was meant to punish us.” Whether the controversy will lead to a broader dialogue on the role of the Chief Justice as university chancellor, or on the BCI’s disciplinary powers, remains to be seen. For now, the 2026 batch of NLSIU joins a growing list of law students whose convocations were sacrificed on the altar of institutional power, leaving the legal profession to ponder the cost of speaking truth to authority.
