The Bar Council of India (BCI) on 13 August 2026 reversed its sweeping order to prevent the enrolment of all 2026 graduates of the Hyderabad-based NALSAR University of Law and asking the university to conduct an inquiry after the move triggered criticism from members of the legal fraternity and others. BCI subsequently dropped its directives and the inquiry it had ordered in connection with the students’ campaign opposing the participation of chief justice of India Surya Kant at the university’s convocation. Even the chief justice slammed the BCI move, saying “BCI doesn’t have any business (to get involved in this matter).”
The episode unfolded within a matter of hours on 13 August 2026, raising questions about the basis for imposing a blanket restriction on an entire graduating batch when the BCI had not identified any individual student as being ineligible for enrolment.
The controversy arose after a section of NALSAR University of Law's 2026 graduating batch objected to the proposal to invite chief justice of India Surya Kant as chief guest at their convocation. The students' representation led to a series of actions by the Bar Council of India (BCI) on 13th August, beginning with a direction to state bar councils not to enrol any of the batch's graduates until further orders.
Entire Batch Barred from Enrolment
On 13th August, BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra directed all state bar councils not to enrol any NALSAR student who had obtained a law degree in 2026 “till further orders”. At the same time, the BCI asked NALSAR’s vice-chancellor to furnish an authenticated factual report within three days identifying those principally involved in initiating, organising, coordinating or mobilising the campaign.
The BCI sought copies of representations, petitions and memoranda submitted to the university regarding the proposed participation of the CJI, along with the names of signatories. It also sought details of people who may have drafted or circulated the campaign, organised meetings, communicated with the media or administered social-media groups. The university was also asked to report on any involvement of student organisations, faculty members, research scholars, alumni or outsiders.
The chairman said the BCI had not, at that stage, declared anyone disqualified from enrolment merely for participating in the representation or campaign. However, he argued that allowing enrolment while an inquiry was pending could frustrate the process and therefore imposed an interim freeze on the entire batch.
The communication also linked what it described as a lack of regard for the highest judicial office to the “dignity, discipline and ethical standards” of the legal profession. The BCI said its final decision would be taken on 19th August after receiving the vice-chancellor's report.
BCI Member Calls Blanket Ban Arbitrary
The blanket restriction was challenged even from within the BCI. Adv N Manoj Kumar, a BCI member and member of the Bar Council of Kerala, wrote to the chairman objecting to the direction.
He argued that students were constitutionally entitled to express their opinions and that the right of eligible law graduates to seek enrolment could not be suspended without a plausible reason. “In a democratic country, students, like every other citizen, are entitled to express their views and disagreement. To threaten them with the extreme consequence of denial or indefinite deferment of enrolment merely for expressing such an opinion is wholly unwarranted and vitiated by unparalleled arbitrariness, apart from infringing upon the fundamental rights guaranteed to them by our Constitution,” he said.
He also pointed out that the BCI’s own communication recognised that participation in a representation did not by itself amount to disqualification and that the role of individuals would have to be examined separately.
Adv Kumar called the blanket prohibition “manifestly arbitrary” and urged the BCI to withdraw it.
Enrolment Restored, Inquiry Retained
The BCI Council subsequently reconsidered the chairman’s direction and issued another communication, on 13th August.
The council said the “vast majority” of the 2026 NALSAR graduates were innocent and had not intended to participate in the alleged “move of disrespect”. It therefore modified the chairman's order and stated that all students would be entitled to enrol with the state bar council of their choice.
However, the second communication did not initially end the matter. It expressly said that the council would wait for the inquiry report from the NALSAR vice-chancellor and take further action after receiving it. It also referred to reports that a handful of teachers and outsiders had been instrumental in instigating otherwise innocent students.
The communication concluded: “No student shall be made to suffer without any fault on his part.”
NALSAR Questions Whether It Can Conduct Inquiry
NALSAR, meanwhile, said it would first have to examine whether conducting the inquiry sought by the BCI was constitutionally permissible under the university's governing framework.
In a press release dated 13th August, vice-chancellor Prof Srikrishna Deva Rao said the university had received the first BCI communication barring enrolment of the entire 2026 batch and subsequently received the second communication rescinding that direction. However, the second communication retained the requirement for an inquiry report concerning the people involved.
The university said the matter would be placed before its executive council, described in the release as the highest decision-making body under the statute establishing NALSAR. The outcome of that consultation would then be communicated to the BCI.
This meant that, even after the enrolment ban had been withdrawn, the status and scope of the proposed inquiry remained unresolved.
Inquiry Dropped Hours Later
The final development came through a late-night post on the social media platform X by BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra rather than, so far as available material shows, a separate formal BCI order.
Mr Mishra said the BCI had considered representations and reactions from senior advocates, members of the bar, law students and members of the public. He said the council was satisfied that the 2026 NALSAR batch had no role in any “disturbance or movement” and announced that the BCI had decided to “close the proceedings altogether”.
Mr Mishra also said students should be able to express their opinions, while stressing that such expression should be accompanied by respect and institutional decorum. He cautioned against publicly ridiculing constitutional institutions, but said that dissent was welcome in a democracy.
Supreme Court Questions BCI's Intervention
The Supreme Court on 14th August strongly criticised the BCI's intervention in the matter. A bench headed by CJI Surya Kant, along with justice Joymalya Bagchi and justice V Mohana, was hearing a plea concerning the BCI's action against the NALSAR students. The CJI described the BCI directive as “absolutely uncalled for” and said the matter was a dialogue between him and the students. He also said that students had a right to protest even if they were wrong in their views, and that the BCI “doesn’t have any business” in the matter.
The court issued notice to the BCI and directed that no punitive action be taken against students or faculty of any national law university or law university in connection with the incidents referred to in the BCI’s letters. It specifically directed that no punitive action be taken against NALSAR students in respect of those incidents. The BCI informed the court that its circular and the inquiry had already been withdrawn. The court has given the BCI two weeks to file its response.
