Question From A Law Student: Can Law Students Afford To Dissent If It Could Cost Them Their Enrolment?
From the very first day in law school and throughout our internships, it became clear that law is more about an attitude or way of thinking or legal acumen, which develops during our law school. Our legal acumen drives our conscience to understand that every action of authority needs to be fair, just and reasonable. Our journey of law school teaches us to dissent from authority whenever they show arbitrariness. This journey of law students dissenting and protecting the rights of people is not new, it is evident from the pre-independence period, when people with great legal acumen began dissenting with the British government, ultimately resulting in Independence. Even after independence this spirit of dissent is unavoidable, be it the British or people in power today, whenever there is injustice, the law students need to step up. Peaceful dissent must not stop, it makes the democracy stronger.
Law students from NALSAR expressed their dissent against the proposed presence of the Hon’ble CJI as the Chief Guest, in response to his remarks which caused concern among sections of the youth. As a result, BCI issued a letter to State Bar Councils barring NALSAR 2026 law graduates from being enrolled as advocates. This raises an important statutory question: Does the Advocates Act, 1961 confer upon the BCI the power to restrict the enrolment of law graduates merely for expressing peaceful dissent?
The Act was enacted to consolidate the law relating to the legal practitioners. In relation to legal education, BCI can only lay down the standards. Enrolment of law graduates is a function of State Bar Council's under Section 6(1)(a). The power under Section 49 cannot be exercised beyond the limits of the parent Act, under Section 24A there are only 3 grounds of disqualification for enrolment which do not include peaceful dissent. Previously the Supreme Court in Indian Council of Legal Aid & Advice & Others v. BCI & Others held the rule made by BCI in addition to Section 24A as ultra vires by holding that Section 49 does not confer such power to BCI. Even the judgment cited, Ex Capt. Harish Uppal v BCI & Anr, in the letter was regarding the power of BCI to regulate professional conduct and issue directions to State Bar Councils but it does not give jurisdiction to BCI to interfere in the internal matters of the University.
Later, the BCI by issuing another letter withdrew the previous one, but such withdrawal will not remove the chilling effect caused to the right to expression of students under Article 19(1)(a). We acknowledge that CJI is the most prestigious position in our legal profession, but peacefully expressing our views does not harm the dignity of the office. Even the CJI called the action unnecessary and remarked that students have the right to protest. More importantly this action of debarring all the law graduates without affording them a hearing raises a serious concern of principles of natural justice. Treating the entire batch alike, without determining the individual involvement of students or identifying any statutory disqualification under Section 24A, also raises concerns under Article 14. The question arises is not whether law students should be permitted to dissent; the more important question is whether a law student should have to calculate the possible impact of lawful dissent on a career that has not yet begun?
Law School comes with academic pressure coupled with internships yet we have to manage 75% of attendance at the same time. Mental stress caused in managing all this during law school is recognised by Delhi High Court in Sushant Rohilla Suicide Case. Bar Councils need to assist or guide young law students rather than taking harsh action against them, as many law students are struggling with various issues already. At the same time, when the highest regulatory body of the legal profession issues such a letter, it can cause students to think twice before expressing their views and affect the confidence which is so important at the beginning of a legal career.
A day later, the BCI Chairperson issued an apology to law students for this incident. Which is definitely a welcome step. But a question remains for the Bar Council of India, State Bar Councils and members of the bar: as we all have different perspectives or views and we all express them, can such expression cost us our enrolment? If expressing a lawful dissent can create uncertainty about our future enrolment, how are young lawyers supposed to develop the confidence to question injustice?
'Question From A Law Student' Vertical, steered by Himanshi Hans