The Student Bar Council of NALSAR University of Law on Saturday condemned the Bar Council of India (BCI) over its now-withdrawn directive preventing state bar councils from enrolling the university’s 2026 graduates as advocates.
The elected student body also sought an apology from BCI Chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra over what it described as objectionable remarks directed at students and faculty members, news agency PTI reported.
“These allegations are unprofessional, unfounded, and without any substance. Making such claims against members of the University family for mere peaceful expression of legitimate dissent is uncalled for and reeks of malice,” it alleged.
The council took particular exception to Mishra’s statement that “a handful of teachers and outsiders were instrumental in instigating innocent students”.
Also read | ‘Beijjati hui wo alag’: CJP mocks Bar Council chairman over NALSAR U-turn within hours
The BCI had on Thursday instructed all state bar councils not to enrol any graduate from NALSAR’s 2026 batch as an advocate until further orders. The directive was withdrawn within hours following widespread criticism.
Student council questions BCI’s authority
{{/usCountry}}The BCI had on Thursday instructed all state bar councils not to enrol any graduate from NALSAR’s 2026 batch as an advocate until further orders. The directive was withdrawn within hours following widespread criticism.
Student council questions BCI’s authority
{{/usCountry}}While acknowledging the withdrawal of the BCI’s letters, the Student Bar Council said the episode still required scrutiny on several grounds.
“We acknowledge the rescission of the letters and the extinguishment of the cause of action. However, even then, it is important for us to record our condemnation of this event at four levels-statutory, constitutional, first principles, and in light of the wider social realities of repression and unfreedom,” the council said in a statement.
It argued that the BCI’s direction to state bar councils concerning the enrolment of NALSAR’s 2026 graduates was outside the regulator’s statutory functions.
The council also questioned the BCI’s direction to the NALSAR Vice-Chancellor to prepare an inquiry report. It said the letter sought information that could reveal the identities of almost everyone involved in the alleged campaign, including its initiators, drafters, student body office-bearers, faculty members, research scholars, alumni and external participants.
“Asking for such details is an intrusive violation of privacy, considering that it involves revealing the identities of students, who may face potential long-term consequences,” it said.
Students object to BCI remarks
The Student Bar Council also criticised the language used in the BCI’s letters, saying they referred to “groupism” and “dirty politics” within the university and accused faculty members of “misleading, misguiding and instigating students.”
Also read | 'Between me and students': CJI Surya Kant slams Bar Council move against protesters
The council said the modified BCI letter, which stated that “a handful of teachers and outsiders were instrumental in instigating the innocent students”, attempted to identify people who may have influenced the campaign.
It argued that such an approach denied students ownership of their political views.
“It reflects the classic 'anti-national' narrative, in which dissent is not engaged with on its merits but is explained away as the work of external actors manipulating impressionable students in a patronising fashion,” it said.
Demand for apology from BCI chairperson
The council alleged that Mishra’s conduct was unbecoming of his position and inconsistent with the constitutional principles expected of the office.
It also said Mishra’s communication on X did not withdraw the allegations made against students and faculty members.
“We demand an apology from the BCI Chairperson for making such objectionable comments,” it said.
The statement further argued that no institution, including the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of India, was beyond legitimate scrutiny in a constitutional democracy.
It said judicial accountability was not opposed to judicial independence but was one of its essential safeguards.
NALSAR students defend right to dissent
According to the Student Bar Council, universities have a role in promoting independent thinking, critical inquiry and the “courage to question authority”.
Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the council said the lawful and legitimate right to dissent was part of the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). It alleged that the BCI Chairperson appeared to have forgotten this principle.
The council also pointed out that Mishra is both the head of a statutory regulator and a BJP Rajya Sabha member.
Against this backdrop, it alleged that efforts to identify faculty members, alumni, research scholars and “outsiders” behind the student dissent appeared to be political in nature.
The students said NALSAR was now faced with a choice between accepting the “shrinking of democratic space” and asserting that universities were not extensions of the state.
CJI had questioned BCI action
The statement came a day after Chief Justice of India Surya Kant sharply questioned the BCI over its action against NALSAR’s 2026 graduates.
The BCI’s move followed objections from a section of students to a proposal to invite the CJI as the chief guest at the university’s convocation.
A section of NALSAR students had written to the Vice-Chancellor, Registrar and professors in July, opposing the proposal to invite the CJI as the chief guest. The date of the convocation has not yet been announced.
(With PTI inputs)