Never Consented To NALSAR's Convocation Invite, No Question Of Attending: CJI Surya Kant

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant has clarified that he never accepted the invitation to be chief guest at the convocation of National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR) University of Law, Hyderabad.

Amid students opposing the CJI's presence at the event, CJI Kant has said, he "never consented to Nalsar's invitation" to be chief guest at the convocation. "The question of me attending the convocation does not arise," CJI said.

In a related development, the Supreme Court on Friday had agreed to hear a plea against Bar Council of India's decision to initiate proceedings against the 2026 batch of 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."

It is to be noted that 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.

BCI had directed all State Bar Councils not to enroll any 2026 law graduate from the Hyderabad-based National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR) until further orders. The 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.