Bar Council drops proceedings against NALSAR graduates over CJI boycott call

The controversy stems from a campaign started by around 450 out of NALSAR’s 1,400 students against inviting Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant to the university convocation. The protest follows oral remarks made by the CJI last month while hearing a petition alleging police excesses during the NEET protests in Delhi, where he reportedly remarked, “Please don’t waste our time. We don’t have time to watch these videos.”

The BCI on Thursday directed all state bar councils not to enrol any 2026 graduate from NALSAR University of Law as an advocate until further notice. The apex regulatory body for the legal profession also sought details regarding those who were allegedly “principally instrumental” in the campaign.

Hours later, it withdrew the directive, saying that “vast majority of the students of NALSAR (those graduating in 2026) are innocent and they were not inclined to take part in the move of disrespect”. It added that “a handful of teachers and outsiders were instrumental in instigating the innocent students” and accordingly modified the earlier order allowing all students to get enrolled with the Bar Council of their choice.

The BCI, however, said it would await the inquiry report from the NALSAR vice-chancellor before taking any further action. It also stated that “no student shall be made to suffer without any fault on his part”.

In a statement on Thursday night, NALSAR V-C Professor Srikrishna Deva Rao said that the university would first examine if the BCI has the statutory authority to demand such an inquiry before acting on the Council’s request. “Once the process of consultation with the Executive Council is completed, the same will be communicated to the Bar Council of India,” he said.

However, Mishra dropped the proceedings altogether without awaiting the V-C’s report. He said students should be free to express their opinions, but that expression should be accompanied by “respect and institutional decorum”.

Report within three days

Earlier, in a communication addressed to the NALSAR vice-chancellor and all the secretaries of state bar councils, the BCI had said it had taken note of reports and material in the public domain concerning “an organised campaign” at the university regarding the CJI’s proposed participation in the convocation. It directed the university to submit a factual report within three days.

“A student of Law, having no regard or respect for the highest Judicial Office of the country, is not expected to be a responsible or sensible Advocate, Teacher or a Judge. Such persons shall always be a liability on the profession,” the BCI communication stated.

The communication further alleged that “groupism and dirty politics” among some members of the academic staff played an active role in “misleading, instigating and misguiding the students”.

Referring to professional ethics, the BCI said advocates are expected to conduct themselves in a dignified manner and maintain a respectful attitude towards courts.

The BCI also noted a “material distinction between legitimate expression and conduct which involves organised intimidation, coercion, personal vilification, disruption, obstruction or an organised call for boycott directed against a constitutional functionary or an institutional programme”.

Scope of report

The BCI instructed the NALSAR management to submit a report including copies of all representations and communications submitted regarding the CJI’s participation. It also asked the university to identify those who were principally involved in initiating, drafting, circulating, coordinating, or mobilising the campaign; communicating with the media; administering online groups used for coordination; or issuing calls for boycott, obstruction, or disruption.

The BCI also said that it is not yet disqualifying any graduate under Section 24A of the Advocates Act. However, it cautioned that enrolling those whose conduct remains under active examination could “create a fait accompli and render the examination ineffective”.

The communication added that any names communicated by the BCI to state bar councils should be treated confidentially, since such communication “does not itself constitute any conclusive finding of misconduct or disqualification”.

The final decision in the matter will be taken on August 19 after the vice-chancellor’s report is received, the statement had said.

Reactions from the Bar

Speaking to the Indian Express, Senior advocate and former President of the Gauhati High Court Bar Association, Mrinal Kumar Choudhury termed the directive “without jurisdiction and high-handed”.

He said the functions of the BCI are enumerated under Section 7 of the Advocates Act, 1961, and that it was not apparent under what authority the BCI had directed state bar councils not to enroll NALSAR graduates.

He further said that the affected students had been “condemned unheard” which was contrary to the principle of audi alteram partem — the right to be heard before an adverse decision is taken.

Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde said, “It is an absolute abuse of power and much beyond the jurisdiction of the BCI. There can be no pre-emptory action against or collective punishment against a graduating batch of students.”

Senior Advocate S Basavaraj, meanwhile, supported the BCI’s decision. “Advocacy comes with a social responsibility. Freedom to practise law is not absolute. It comes with reasonable restrictions,” he told The Indian Express. Referring to the controversy surrounding the CJI’s remarks, Basavaraj said there was a “deliberate attempt to twist his words” and give them a political colour.

“The students are deliberately twisting the Chief Justice of India’s words by giving political colour to his statement,” he said.

Reacting to the BCI directive, Prof G Mohan Gopal told The Indian Express that while the CJI’s statutory role in NALSAR “should be respected and not obstructed” students equally have a “fundamental constitutional right to protest peacefully” against what they perceive as injustice, which he described as “the lifeblood of our democracy”.

He said that the autonomy of the university should be respected on disciplinary matters, expressing full confidence in the faculty of the university and the VC to have resolved the issue internally. Describing the BCI’s intervention as “entirely counterproductive and excessive” he said that the move is an attempt to “illegally impose collective punishment on an entire generation of students.”

Prof Gopal added that it was contrary to principles of natural justice and constitutional rights of the students. “The Bar Council is an institution that should be safeguarding constitutional values and the rights of people under the Constitution and not engaging in this kind of illegal and unjust action,” he said, adding that he hoped the Supreme Court would set aside the decision promptly before any student suffered any prejudice.