Back
Judge Ujjal Bhuyan Calls NALSAR Students 'Brilliant, Bold, Brave' After BCI Row
In a significant moral endorsement that cuts to the heart of the ongoing debate over and in India, Judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan publicly lauded the students of , Hyderabad, calling them “brilliant, bold, and brave.” The remarks, delivered on at the valedictory session of the 19th Justice Bodh Raj Sawhney Memorial Moot Court Competition, come barely weeks after the university’s graduating batch faced a tumultuous and widely criticized enrollment ban imposed by the (BCI)—a ban that was swiftly withdrawn following a public outcry and intervention by the .
Justice Bhuyan, who served as NALSAR’s ex-officio Chancellor during his tenure as Chief Justice of the , did not explicitly reference the BCI controversy or the role of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant in his address. Yet his words carried unmistakable resonance, offering a judicial imprimatur to the students’ . “You have shown to the country and the world what a university student, that too, a student of law should be,” Justice Bhuyan told the gathering. “You are brilliant; you are bold; and you are brave.”
A Public Vote of Confidence
The judge’s praise extended beyond the student body. He commended the faculty members for “performing their duties admirably” and specifically lauded Vice-Chancellor Professor Srikrishna Deva Rao for leading the institution with integrity. “It was during my tenure as the Chancellor that Professor Rao was appointed as the Vice Chancellor. I must say that he has led the University admirably. He has not let the teachers and the students down,” Justice Bhuyan said.
This public vote of confidence from a sitting judge is particularly striking given the context. In , a section of NALSAR’s graduating batch had objected to the invitation extended to Chief Justice Surya Kant to be the chief guest at the university’s convocation. The students’ opposition stemmed from remarks attributed to the CJI during a hearing involving a student protest. What could have remained an internal university disagreement escalated dramatically when the intervened.
The Controversy: A Timeline
On , BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra issued a directive to all barring them from enrolling any graduate from NALSAR’s 2026 batch until further orders. The directive also demanded that the university submit a report identifying students, faculty, and others involved in organizing the campaign against the CJI. The BCI Chairman questioned the students’ conduct and alleged that faculty members were misleading them.
The response from NALSAR was measured but firm. Vice-Chancellor Professor Deva Rao stated that the university would examine the legality of the BCI’s directives and place the matter before its Executive Council, the highest decision-making body. Within hours, however, the BCI reversed its decision, dropping all proceedings against the batch. The BCI Chairman announced that “no student shall suffer without fault” and that the enrollment bar was lifted.
The controversy had already reached the , which on directed that no punitive action be taken against NALSAR students or faculty. On , the Court delivered a decisive blow, holding that the BCI had no to take against law students and declaring its communications concerning the NALSAR graduates to be “.”
Judicial Endorsement of Dissent
Justice Bhuyan’s remarks, though not explicitly referencing the legal battle, effectively underscore the same principles the articulated in its September ruling. By praising the students for demonstrating “what a student of law should be,” the judge validated the very act of dissent that the BCI had sought to penalize.
Legal scholars note that Justice Bhuyan’s comments carry particular weight because they come from a judge who has previously served as the University’s Chancellor and is intimately familiar with NALSAR’s institutional culture. His defense of the students aligns with a broader judicial trend emphasizing the constitutional importance of critical thinking within legal education. As one senior advocate observed, “A legal professional who cannot question authority is hardly fit to uphold the . Justice Bhuyan’s words remind us that the capacity to critique is not rebellion—it is a prerequisite for a vibrant democracy.”
Broader Implications for Legal Education
The NALSAR episode and Justice Bhuyan’s subsequent praise highlight several unresolved tensions in India’s legal education landscape. First, it raises questions about the scope of regulatory bodies like the BCI to discipline students in autonomous institutions. The has now firmly drawn a line: the BCI cannot wield its as a weapon against student expression. Second, it underscores the vulnerability of when external pressures—whether from bar councils, political actors, or even the judiciary itself—seek to curtail .
For law students across the country, the message is clear: dissent, when grounded in principle, can find support from the highest quarters. Justice Bhuyan’s remarks may embolden students at other universities to voice concerns without fear of blanket punitive measures. However, the episode also serves as a cautionary tale. The BCI’s initial overreach, though corrected, demonstrates how quickly regulatory authority can be misused to suppress legitimate expression.
Conclusion
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan’s public praise of NALSAR students is more than a feel-good moment. It is a judicial affirmation of the values that underpin a robust legal profession—courage, critical thinking, and the willingness to stand up for principle. By calling the students “brilliant, bold, and brave,” he has not only lifted the morale of a cohort that faced an existential threat to their careers but also reinforced the that the right to dissent is non-negotiable, especially for those training to become guardians of the law.
As the controversy fades, the lasting legacy of this episode may well be the it sets: that no regulatory body, however powerful, can arbitrarily silence the voice of law students. And that the judiciary will step in to protect the that make legal education meaningful.
