The Supreme Court on Friday strongly disapproved of the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) intervention against students of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, observing that the students had a right to protest and that the controversy arose from a dialogue between the students and the Chief Justice of India.
The matter was mentioned before a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana after the BCI had issued communications concerning the NALSAR students and its 2026 graduating batch.
Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the BCI had no role in matters concerning the university and its students. He submitted that despite withdrawal of the impugned circular, the cause of action survived. The CJI strongly questioned the BCI’s intervention, making it clear that the students’ interaction with him was essentially a matter between the students and the Chief Justice.
“
“It’s a dialogue between students and me. This was absolutely unnecessary. Totally uncalled for…Sometimes in young age, even if somebody makes a statement which according to us is wrong, let it be wrong. That does not mean that they don’t have a right…I was also actively involved in student activities as a student.”
The Court questioned the BCI’s role in the matter and expressed concern over the potential consequences for the students’ education and professional careers. The CJI noted that university admissions were pending and that the students’ future enrolment and careers could be affected.
The Bench also questioned the manner in which the BCI’s decision had been taken. Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked whether the Bar Council had actually been convened to pass such a resolution, seeking an explanation regarding the functioning and decision-making process behind the circular.
“
“Was the Bar Council convened to take a resolution like that? We want to know.”
The BCI’s counsel, Advocate Radhika Gautam, informed the Court that the impugned circular had already been withdrawn and accepted notice on behalf of the BCI. The Court, however, clarified that withdrawal of the circular did not end the matter at this stage. It directed the BCI to file its counter-affidavit within two weeks.
Meanwhile, the Court ordered that no punitive action be taken against students or faculty of NALSAR by the BCI or any State Bar Council in respect of the incidents mentioned in the two letters issued by the BCI.
The Court was specifically informed that the students were apprehensive of further action, including possible criminal proceedings. The Bench’s interim protection therefore extends to punitive action arising from the incidents referred to in the BCI’s communications.
The CJI also urged that the controversy should not be allowed to obstruct the students’ professional careers. In a strong message of support, he asked the students to complete their enrolment and join the Supreme Court Bar.
“
“You tell all the students to get the licence at the earliest. Join the Supreme Court Bar. We will empanel them for legal aid cases.”
He added that enabling the students to participate in legal aid work would be an appropriate response to anything that could otherwise impede their professional careers.
Background
NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, students raised objections over the proposed presence of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as the chief guest.
The BCI subsequently issued a communication directing State Bar Councils to withhold enrolment of the University’s 2026 graduating batch and sought an inquiry into persons allegedly involved in the developments. Following opposition to the direction, the BCI issued another communication the same day withdrawing the direction to withhold enrolment of the 2026 batch. However, the communication continued to require the Vice-Chancellor to submit an inquiry report concerning the persons involved.
NALSAR Vice-Chancellor Prof. Srikrishna Deva Rao responded that the University would examine whether such an inquiry fell within its constitutional powers and governance framework. He indicated that the issue would be placed before the Executive Council, the University’s highest decision-making body, for consideration.
But owing to the continued opposition, BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra announced on X that, after considering representations from Senior Advocates, members of the Bar, law students and public-spirited citizens, the BCI was satisfied that the 2026 batch had no role in any disturbance or movement and had decided to close the proceedings altogether.
Also Read: BCI Seeks Report on NALSAR Campaign; Bars Enrolment of 2026 Graduates Pending Further Orders