BCI chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra earlier said no student who obtained a law degree from NALSAR in 2026 should be enrolled as an advocate until the council issues further directions.
The Bar Council of India has taken back its order which barred students belonging to the 2026 batch of Hyderabad law college, National Academy of Legal Studies (NALSAR), from enrolling as advocates. Hours earlier, the BCI had directed every State Bar Council not to enrol any student graduating from Hyderabad’s NALSAR University of Law in 2026 as an advocate until further orders after students of the institution protested against an invitation to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to attend the university’s convocation.
“After detailed deliberation, the @barcouncilindia has modified its earlier directions concerning @NALSAR_Official. All 2026 passed-out students of NALSAR will now be entitled to seek enrolment with the State Bar Council of their choice. The factual inquiry will continue, and further action will follow on the basis of the report. No student shall be made to suffer without any fault on his or her part,” BCI chairperson Manan Kumar said in a statement on Thursday evening.
After detailed deliberation, the @barcouncilindia has modified its earlier directions concerning @NALSAR_Official.
All 2026 passed-out students of NALSAR will now be entitled to seek enrolment with the State Bar Council of their choice. The factual inquiry will continue, and… pic.twitter.com/uJPkpHaOXj
— Manan Kumar Mishra (@MishraManan01) August 13, 2026
Mishra had earlier said no student who obtained a law degree from NALSAR in 2026 should be enrolled as an advocate until the council issues further directions.
The decision followed reports that a section of the graduating class had objected to the university’s reported proposal to invite Justice Surya Kant as the chief guest for its forthcoming convocation.
The students’ campaign was prompted by the Chief Justice’s reported remarks during a Supreme Court hearing concerning alleged police action against protesters at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar. The BCI has now sought a detailed account from the university identifying those it says were principally involved in initiating, organising, coordinating or mobilising the campaign.
“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,” a statement from the BCI read.
Such persons shall always be a liability on the profession. Such conduct, reflects adversely upon the person’s suitability for entry into or association with the legal profession and is inconsistent with the dignity, discipline and ethical standards of the legal profession. Our experience is that such people are always indulged in strikes and boycotts and tarnish the image of the legal profession,” it added.
The BCI chairman, who is also a BJP Rajya Sabha MP, later said that the 2026 batch of NALSAR had “no role in any disturbance or movement”.
The Bar Council of India has decided to close the proceedings altogether, he said in a late-night post on X.
After considering the representations and reactions of Senior Advocates, learned members of the Bar, law students and public spirited citizens, and being satisfied that the 2026 batch of NALSAR, Hyderabad, had no role in any disturbance or movement, the Bar Council of India has…
— Manan Kumar Mishra (@MishraManan01) August 13, 2026
He had earlier alleged that some teachers had played an active role in “misleading, instigating and misguiding” students and described the allegation as a serious matter.
The BCI said that, as the regulator of legal education, it could not remain a “mute spectator” to what it considered a serious situation.
What The Students Objected
The dispute began with a representation from a group of graduating NALSAR students asking the university to reconsider an invitation to Justice Surya Kant to its convocation.
The students addressed their representation to the Vice-Chancellor, Registrar and professors.
They argued that the convocation should reflect NALSAR’s commitment to constitutional rights, access to justice and reasoned engagement with grievances. Their objection was linked to proceedings in the Supreme Court concerning police action against protesters during a “Chalo Sansad” demonstration at Jantar Mantar on July 20.
The protest had been organised by the Cockroach Janta Party, whose participants had raised a range of issues, including the conduct of the NEET examination and the functioning of the National Testing Agency (NTA).
The protesters had attempted to march towards Parliament, leading to clashes with security personnel.
The Supreme Court proceedings two days later became a particular point of contention for the NALSAR students. On July 22, a lawyer sought urgent listing of a petition concerning alleged police excesses against the protesters.
The matter was mentioned before a bench headed by Justice Surya Kant and also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana.
The lawyer told the court that students had allegedly been subjected to police brutality and said video evidence was available. The counsel asked whether the matter could be listed urgently.
Chief Justice Surya Kant’s remarks during the exchange — “don’t waste our time and yours” and “we don’t want to watch any videos” — sparked a controversy which prompted the Chief Justice to explain the context behind it.
“It was reported wrongly that the Supreme Court declined to hear the petition. The Supreme Court can never deny hearing of any case. It’s my commitment we are available 24 hours,” Chief Justice Kant told NDTV.
“If I have not got the petition in the first place, what hearing would I give? If they give a one-page letter and seek a hearing on it, that’s not the way. We can’t violate the Supreme Court’s process of filing a petition. I told them they should file the petition properly. But they wanted it immediately. So, I had to send a message to them to file a proper petition,” he added.
Reactions
The Congress reacted strongly to the initial order passed by the Bar Council, terming the move “vindictive, arbitrary, illegal and wholly unacceptable.”
“The Bar Council of India, a statutory body headed by a sitting BJP MP, has passed an order preventing an entire graduating batch of NALSAR from enrolling as advocates merely because some students exercised their right to dissent. This is vindictive, arbitrary, illegal and wholly unacceptable,” said Congress Rajya Sabha MP Ajay Maken.
