Back
Urges NLSIU to Reconsider Convocation Cancellation, Citing
The has issued a powerful statement in support of graduating students at the , Bengaluru, urging the administration to reverse its decision to cancel the 34th Annual Convocation. The Council’s intervention underscores a fundamental tension between and student , arguing that a convocation should not be cancelled merely because students exercise their right to voice concerns about a chief guest.
The controversy erupted after NLSIU abruptly announced the cancellation of its convocation, originally scheduled for , citing “unavoidable circumstances.” Instead, degrees would be conferred “.” The move followed opposition from a section of students and over 120 alumni to the participation of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, the Chancellor of NLSIU, as the chief guest. The students’ objection was part of a broader protest against the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) earlier disciplinary action against the 2026 batch of —an action that was later withdrawn. The students demanded an unconditional apology from the BCI and also expressed disapproval of CJI Surya Kant’s presence at both NALSAR’s and NLSIU’s convocations.
The Core of the NLU Delhi Statement
The explicitly acknowledged the significance of the CJI’s role as Chancellor, but argued that this cannot override the graduating batch’s autonomy. In its statement, the Council declared:
“A graduating batch must have the autonomy and freedom to express its collective views on matters concerning its convocation, including regarding the invitation of guests to the ceremony. over the conduct of a convocation cannot extend to controlling the substance of students' .”
This framing positions the issue squarely within the domain of and . The Council emphasized that a convocation is not merely a ceremonial formality but a culmination of years of effort, a moment for students, families, and faculty to celebrate together. The alternative arrangement of conferring degrees “,” the Council noted, “does not substitute the significance of the graduating class being able to mark the occasion together.”
Referencing Precedent and Seeking a Balanced Arrangement
The NLU Delhi statement shrewdly pointed to NLSIU’s own recent history. For its 33rd Annual Convocation, the Chancellor had been represented by another judge of the . This precedent suggests that institutional flexibility exists to accommodate divergent views without sacrificing the convocation itself. The Council urged the university to “explore an arrangement that respects the position of the Chancellor while also respecting the views of the graduating students.”
This argument is central: it rejects a binary choice between honoring the CJI and honoring student voices. Instead, it proposes a middle path that upholds the dignity of the office while vindicating the students’ .
Legal and Academic Implications
The controversy raises pressing questions about the limits of in academic settings. The right to under is not suspended within university gates. While institutions have the power to organize events, they cannot use that power to muzzle disagreement. The ’s intervention tacitly invokes the principle that a university’s stature carries a “corresponding responsibility to uphold , and .”
For legal professionals, this case is a live illustration of how operate in the context of higher education. It echoes rulings such as and which recognize the autonomy of educational institutions but also mandate respect for constitutional values. The BCI’s initial action against NALSAR students—later withdrawn—had already drawn sharp criticism; the convocation cancellation now adds another layer to the debate over the relationship between statutory bodies, university administrations, and student bodies.
Impact on Law Schools and Future Precedent
If NLSIU persists with cancellation, it could set a worrying precedent for other law schools in India. Law students, by their training, are acutely sensitive to and . A decision to cancel a convocation over student dissent risks being seen as punitive and antithetical to the very principles that legal education seeks to instill.
The ’s statement, though not binding, carries moral and persuasive weight. It represents a collective stance from one of India’s premier law schools, signaling that student bodies across the National Law University system are watching closely. The Council’s call for reconsideration is also a strategic nudge to the NLSIU administration to avoid an escalation that could embroil the university in prolonged protests or even litigation.
Conclusion
At its core, this episode is about whether universities will treat students as passive recipients of institutional largesse or as active participants with a legitimate voice in shaping their own academic milestones. The has articulated a clear, constitutionally grounded position: student views on a convocation guest should be met with dialogue, not cancellation. As the NLSIU administration weighs its next move, the legal community will be watching to see whether the university can chart a course that honors both its Chancellor and its graduating class—without sacrificing either.
The ball is now in NLSIU’s court. A reconsideration would not only restore the convocation but would also reinforce the message that is not a slogan—it is a lived reality.
