Back
NLSIU Cancels 2026 Convocation Amid Student Objections Over CJI Surya Kant and BCI Chairman Presence
The , Bengaluru, has abruptly cancelled its 34th Annual Convocation for the graduating batch of 2026, citing “unavoidable circumstances.” The decision, announced on , comes weeks after more than 700 students and alumni publicly opposed the proposed attendance of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra at the ceremony. The university will instead confer degrees , with certificates made available by courier or on-campus collection.
The cancellation marks a significant departure from tradition and underscores the growing tensions between law school communities and regulatory bodies over issues of , , and the role of high-ranking office holders in student ceremonies. For the legal profession, the incident raises critical questions about the balance of power between statutory councils and educational institutions, as well as the limits of student activism in the face of administrative pressure.
The Build-Up: Student Opposition and the NALSAR Precedent
The controversy did not emerge in a vacuum. It traces back to a parallel dispute at , Hyderabad, where students and faculty objected to CJI Surya Kant’s proposed attendance at their convocation. In response, the BCI on directed state bar councils to halt the enrolment of NALSAR’s 2026 graduating batch as advocates—a move widely perceived as retaliatory. The directive was rescinded within hours after a public outcry, but the damage to the relationship between the BCI and the legal education community had been done.
NLSIU students, many of whom had been following the NALSAR developments closely, decided to act preemptively. On , they issued a joint statement signed by 165 graduating students, 409 current students, and 128 alumni. The letter condemned the BCI’s actions as “ ” and a “direct attack on the guaranteed under .” It demanded an unconditional apology from the BCI to the NALSAR community and expressed strong disapproval of both CJI Surya Kant and Manan Kumar Mishra attending NLSIU’s convocation.
The students argued that inviting persons “towards whom they have publicly expressed their disdain and condescension” to confer degrees was “offensive, humiliating, and a mockery of students and their struggles.” They also criticized the BCI’s directive to NALSAR to identify students and faculty members involved in making representations, describing it as “nothing less than a witch-hunt.”
NLSIU’s Response and the Cancellation
Despite what the university termed “collective best efforts,” the convocation scheduled for was called off. In the official notice, the registrar stated: “Despite our collective best efforts, due to unavoidable circumstances, we are unable to hold the 34th Annual Convocation. All graduating students will be conferred their degrees after due approvals by the Governing Bodies.”
The university provided graduating students with two options for receiving their certificates: courier delivery or in-person collection from the campus. A new form will be circulated to allow students to indicate their preference. The cancellation means the 2026 batch will not experience the traditional graduation ceremony—a milestone that, as the students’ letter noted, “marks an important achievement for families” in a country where access to higher education is severely restricted by barriers of class, caste, and gender.
The absence of a physical convocation also sidesteps the immediate conflict over who would have presided over the event. CJI Surya Kant is the Chancellor of NLSIU and traditionally awards degrees at the annual convocation. In , he had presided over the ceremony with BCI Chairman Mishra delivering the welcome address. This year, however, the same combination proved untenable.
Legal Implications: Free Speech, , and
The NLSIU convocation cancellation is symptomatic of a deeper malaise in legal education governance. The BCI, as a under , has extensive regulatory powers over law schools, including the power to enroll graduates as advocates. However, when those powers are perceived as being weaponized against students for exercising their fundamental rights, the tension between regulation and becomes acute.
Legal experts note that the BCI’s initial action against NALSAR—directing state bar councils not to enrol graduates—raises serious constitutional questions. Under Article 19(1)(a), students have the right to express dissent and to petition authorities. Any retaliatory measure that affects their professional prospects could be challenged as an indirect restriction on free speech. The NLSIU students explicitly invoked this framework in their statement, asserting that the BCI’s actions were “nothing less than a witch-hunt.”
Moreover, the incident highlights the ambiguous role of high constitutional functionaries in university ceremonies. While CJI Surya Kant, as Chancellor, is a natural choice to confer degrees, his attendance became a flashpoint because of the preceding controversy at NALSAR. The students’ objection was not personal but procedural: they argued that the CJI and the BCI Chairman should not be invited until the BCI accountable for its conduct. This raises a broader question about whether ceremonial roles can be separated from governance disputes.
is another casualty. Law schools like NLSIU and NALSAR are prestigious institutions with independent academic cultures. When a regulatory body intervenes in convocation guest lists, it blurs the line between oversight and micromanagement. The cancellation of NLSIU’s convocation, while presented as voluntary, was undoubtedly influenced by the escalating controversy. The university may have concluded that holding the ceremony would invite further protests or disruptions.
Broader Impact on Legal Practice and Education
For the legal profession, this episode serves as a cautionary tale about the fragility of in law schools. Future batch of students may feel emboldened to challenge BCI decisions through collective action, especially if they perceive institutional support. Conversely, the BCI may become more cautious in exercising its powers, aware that heavy-handed responses can trigger widespread opposition.
The incident also affects the employability and professional preparation of the 2026 batch. While degrees will be conferred , the absence of a formal convocation means a loss of networking opportunities, ceremonial recognition, and the symbolic closure that such events provide. Some students may organize their own graduation ceremony, as suggested by Saurav Das of the Cockroach Janata Party, who posted on X: “I hope the NLSIU graduating batch organises its own graduation ceremony and invites the most honourable guest to felicitate them. Do it the Gen-Z way!”
From a governance perspective, the episode underscores the need for clear protocols regarding the BCI’s use of its letterhead and the discretion of its Chairperson. The NLSIU students specifically demanded an explanation of the protocol governing the BCI’s official communication. Without such clarity, the potential for arbitrary action remains.
Conclusion
The cancellation of NLSIU’s 34th convocation is more than a logistical hiccup; it is a watershed moment for legal education in India. It reflects the growing assertiveness of law students in holding statutory bodies accountable, the fragility of the line between ceremonial and regulatory functions, and the enduring importance of free speech in academic settings. As the legal community digests the implications, one thing is clear: the traditional convocation, with its scripted roles and formal protocols, may never be quite the same. The NLSIU graduating batch of 2026 will receive their degrees , but the message they have sent about institutional accountability will resonate far beyond Bengaluru.
