‘Dialogue between me, students. Why interfere?’: Chief Justice on Bar move

No action against students

The CJI made the remarks during mentioning hours – when matters requiring urgent attention are brought to the notice of the court – after Senior Advocate K Parameshwar informed the bench that a plea had been filed challenging the directive.

BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra had issued the directive Thursday, asking state Bar councils not to enrol students of NALSAR’s 2026 batch following the protest. He withdrew the circular hours later, saying the BCI had closed the proceedings after concluding that the students had “no role in any disturbance or movement”.

Issuing notice to the BCI, the bench, also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, said, “Upon being orally mentioned by Mr K Parameshwar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, the matter is taken on Board. Issue notice, returnable on 03.09.2026. Ms. Radhika Gautam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 – Bar Council of India, accepts notice. She states that the offending Circulars have since been withdrawn. Be that as it may, let the counter affidavit be filed within two weeks. Meanwhile, no punitive action shall be taken against the students or Faculty of NALSAR University of Law at the instance of Bar Council of India or any State Bar Council in respect of the incidents mentioned in the subject letters.”

‘BCI doesn’t have any business’

Parameshwar said that although the directive had been withdrawn, the cause of action survived. He said it raised questions over the manner in which BCI chairman Mishra had acted. He pointed out that a Bar Council member had already opposed the circular.

“BCI has no business of what’s going on in a university,” Parameshwar said.

Recalling his own days as a student, the CJI said he had been actively involved in student activities and that students were raising their voice peacefully and should be allowed to do that.

“I myself, during student days, was involved in student activities. Peacefully, they are raising voice, they should be allowed. Even if they are wrong, assuming, they have the right to protest. Who can stop them? So long as they are lawfully and peacefully raising a voice, they must be heard. Why should the Bar Council or any other body should interfere?” he said.

After the order was dictated, the CJI told Parameshwar, “You tell the students, get the licence at the earliest. Join the Supreme Court Bar. We will empanel them for legal aid cases, and let them do legal aid. This will be the befitting answer to all those who caused impediment in their career.”

Justice Bagchi asked, “Was BCI convened to take a resolution like that? We want to know.”

The plea by two NALSAR alumni, Mihira Sood and Abhishek Tiwari, said the Council did not have the statutory authority to conduct the inquiry as proposed or to impose a pre-emptive restriction on the enrolment of law graduates. They said participation in a student campaign or the pendency of a university inquiry is not among reasons under the Advocates Act to disqualify a law degree holder from enrolment.