'Absolutely Uncalled For': Supreme Court Slams BCI Proceedings Against 2026 NALSAR Batch

The Supreme Court today has agreed to hear a plea against Bar Council of India's decision to initiate proceedings against the 2026 batch of NALSAR NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad.

As the plea was mentioned before CJI Surya Kant led bench by Senior Advocate K Parameshwar who stated that BCI has no business of doing this, CJI Kant said, "This is absolutely uncalled for..It a dialogue between me and students..Who are they to raise an issue..In my student days I was actively involved in student activities..Assuming that they are wrong...they have a right to protest..BCI does not have any business.."

While ordering that no action be taken against the faculty or students of NALSAR, CJI added, "In young days somebody makes a wrong statement that doesn’t mean they don’t have right to protest. Please tell all the students to get enrolled, join Supreme Court bar, we will empanel them for legal aid courses."

Noting that the impugned Circular has been withdrawn, the order adds, "Pending circular has been withdrawn. Be that as it may let counter affidavit be filed within 2 weeks. No punitive action to be taken against students of NALSAR in respect of the incidents mentioned in the subject letters."

The Bar Council of India (BCI) has closed proceedings against the 2026 batch of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, after considering representations from Senior Advocates, members of the Bar, law students and public-spirited citizens. The Council concluded that the students of the 2026 batch had no role in any disturbance or movement and decided that no further action would be taken against them.

The proceedings had arisen in the backdrop of concerns surrounding developments at NALSAR and the proposed participation of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as the chief guest at the university's 2026 convocation. The issue had attracted representations and discussions concerning the conduct and participation of students in the events surrounding the controversy.

After considering the material placed before it and the representations received from various stakeholders, the BCI found no basis to proceed against the 2026 batch. The Council has accordingly brought the proceedings to a close.

The BCI also advised the students that they were free to express their opinions and views, while emphasising that such expression should remain within the bounds of institutional decorum and discipline. At the same time, the Council stressed the significance of the office of the Chief Justice of India, observing that the highest judicial office of the country is a matter of collective pride and should be treated with the requisite respect.

The Bar Council of India (BCI) on Wednesday, late evening had withdrawn its earlier direction barring the enrolment of NALSAR University of Law’s 2026 graduates as advocates, saying the “vast majority” of the students were innocent and had not intended to participate in any move to “disrespect” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.

A fresh communication issued on August 13 reads that the Council had reconsidered its earlier order after deliberations with its members. The Council said all NALSAR students graduating in 2026 would now be entitled to enrol with the State Bar Council of their choice.

The development came hours after the BCI had directed all State Bar Councils not to enrol any 2026 law graduate from the Hyderabad-based National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR) until further orders. The earlier direction had followed a controversy over a section of NALSAR students opposing the reported invitation to CJI Surya Kant to attend the university’s forthcoming convocation.

The controversy began after students objected to the proposed participation of CJI Surya Kant at the convocation. Their objection was linked to remarks made by the CJI during Supreme Court proceedings concerning alleged police action against protesters at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar.

On July 20, protesters associated with the Cockroach Janta Party had attempted to march towards Parliament, leading to clashes with security personnel.

Two days later, a plea concerning alleged police excesses was mentioned before a bench headed by Justice Surya Kant. During the hearing, counsel referred to alleged police brutality against students and said video evidence was available. The CJI reportedly said, “don’t waste our time and yours” and indicated that the Court did not want to watch videos.

The remarks triggered discontent among students at NALSAR. On July 23, students from the graduating batch submitted a representation to the university’s Vice-Chancellor, Registrar and professors, asking them to reconsider the CJI’s proposed participation in the convocation. Reports said around 450 students from different batches subsequently expressed support for the objection.

The students argued that the convocation should reflect NALSAR’s commitment to constitutional rights, access to justice and reasoned engagement with grievances. Their objection was specifically tied to what they viewed as the CJI’s handling of allegations of police brutality against protesters.

The BCI, however, viewed the campaign differently. In its earlier order, it directed NALSAR to submit an authenticated report identifying those who had allegedly initiated, organised, coordinated or mobilised the campaign. It also sought copies of representations, petitions or memoranda submitted to the university and the complete list of their signatories. The university was given three days to respond.

The BCI had said that a law student showing “no regard or respect for the highest Judicial Office of the country” could not be expected to become a responsible advocate, teacher or judge. It had also said such conduct was inconsistent with the “dignity, discipline and ethical standards” of the legal profession.

BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra had further alleged, citing what he described as reliable sources, that some teachers had played an active role in “misleading, instigating and misguiding” students and that there was groupism and internal political activity among sections of the academic staff. The blanket enrolment ban was imposed pending the inquiry. The BCI’s earlier circular stated that no student who obtained a law degree from NALSAR in 2026 would be enrolled by any State Bar Council as an advocate until further orders.

In its fresh August 13 communication, the BCI had said that, according to the latest report, the “vast majority” of the 2026 pass-outs were innocent and were not inclined to participate in any move to disrespect the CJI. It therefore modified the chairman’s order and permitted all 2026 NALSAR graduates to enrol with State Bar Councils of their choice.

The BCI had nevertheless kept the broader inquiry alive. It had said some reliable sources had reported that a “handful of teachers and outsiders” were instrumental in instigating the students. The Council said it would await the inquiry report of the NALSAR Vice-Chancellor before taking any further action. The fresh order also carried a clear message that “no student shall be made to suffer without any fault on his part".

Mentioning Date: August 14, 2026

Bench: CJI Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice Mohana