E-Paper
Objection to chief guest, big Bar Council order, then a U-turn: NALSAR University-CJI Kant invite row explained
Within hours of issuing the order, the Bar Council of India withdrew the order following an uproar online and a threat of protest by CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke.
A fresh row has erupted over the Bar Council of India (BCI)’s decision to freeze the enrolment of the entire 2026 graduating batch of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, a move that was later withdrawn.
The BCI’s initial move came in response to a section of NALSAR students opposing the proposed participation of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as the chief guest at the university’s convocation.
How and where did the controversy begin
Some NALSAR University students wrote to the vice-chancellor, registrar, and professors, objecting to any proposal to invite CJI Surya Kant as the chief guest at the convocation.
Deep Dive
The first representation was submitted on July 23 by 70 members of the outgoing LLB batch. Students from several later batches subsequently expressed their support for the representation, HT reported earlier.
The students raised objections over remarks made by CJI Kant in the Supreme Court while hearing a plea concerning alleged police excesses against protesters during the student demonstration at Jantar Mantar on July 20.
They referred to CJI Kant’s reported comments that the bench was not interested in watching videos when the lead counsel offered to show footage of the alleged police excesses during the July 20 protest.
"We feel that receiving our degrees from a dignitary whose recent public conduct, as reported, appears dismissive of serious allegations of police brutality against protesting citizens, sits uncomfortably with what we have been taught to value during our time at NALSAR", they said in the email, according to news agency PTI.
BCI’s action against students halts enrolment
In its initial order, BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra instructed all State Bar Councils not to enrol any 2026 law graduate from NALSAR University as an advocate until further orders.
The first order asked the university to provide an authenticated report naming those who had started, organised, coordinated or mobilised the campaign against the CJI’s proposed participation in the convocation.
It also sought details of the representations, signatories, meetings, social media groups, media interactions, and any calls for a boycott or disruption. The BCI further sought information on the involvement of faculty members, research scholars, alumni, student organisations or outsiders.
The first communication said the temporary freeze was required, as allowing enrolment while the inquiry was underway could interfere with the process.
The order also questioned the suitability of those who, according to the BCI, had shown disregard for the highest judicial office. It linked such behaviour with the dignity, discipline and ethical standards expected in the legal profession.
Order retracted within hours
Within hours of issuing the directive, the Bar Council of India withdrew the order following an uproar on social media and a threat of protest by Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) founder Abhijeet Dipke.
The revised notification reversed the earlier order and stated that the "vast majority" of the students were innocent and should not be held responsible for the alleged misconduct of a few.
In the fresh communication, Mishra said BCI members had held a detailed discussion on the earlier letter and unanimously agreed to change the direction relating to the students’ enrolment.
"All the students will be entitled to get enrolled with the State Bar Councils of their choice," he said in the letter.
Probe ordered, then paused
The BCI initially said its factual inquiry into the controversy would continue, but later withdrew this decision as well. The fresh letter said it had received reports from “reliable sources” claiming that a number of teachers and outsiders had been involved in “instigating the innocent students”.
In a late-night post on X, Mishra said the Bar Council had decided to end all proceedings against the 2026 graduating batch after taking into account representations and feedback from senior advocates, members of the Bar, law students and members of the public.
He said the Council was satisfied that the 2026 batch had no role in any “disturbance or movement.”
SC Bar Association slams BCI's move
Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president Vikas Singh also opposed the BCI’s initial action. He described the decision as an effort to put pressure on students to exercise their fundamental right to freedom.
"This unprecedented and wholly arbitrary direction is, in my view, illegal, disproportionate and fundamentally unsustainable. It amounts to an attempt to intimidate law students for exercising their fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
Universities are meant to be campuses of free thought and fearless debate," he said.
CJP’s protest threat
In response to the BCI’s initial order, Dipke invoked the phrase associated with the origin of his Cockroach party, linking it to the decision to prevent the graduates from being enrolled as advocates.
“What if all legal cockroaches come together?” Dipke posted on X, reacting to the BCI’s decision to halt the enrolment of law graduates as advocates.
Dipke’s latest post refers to the origins of the CJP movement. After the CJI’s “cockroaches” remark, he had posted the question online: “What if all the cockroaches come together?”
The post later led to the formation of the Cockroach Janta Party, a youth-led movement that gained a large following and eventually held protests across the country against examination-related irregularities.
(With inputs from Utkarsh Anand, agencies)
