NEW DELHI, Aug 14: The Supreme Court on Friday took a strong view of a Bar Council of India (BCI) directive seeking to prevent state bar councils from enrolling 2026 graduates of NALSAR University of Law as advocates, observing that students have the right to protest.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, questioned the BCI’s intervention in the matter and emphasised that students could express their disagreement through peaceful protest.
The court’s observations came while hearing a plea challenging the BCI circular and seeking urgent consideration of the matter.
The Chief Justice questioned the basis for the BCI’s intervention, observing that the issue concerned a dialogue between him and the students. The bench made it clear that the regulatory body could not interfere merely because students had exercised their right to protest.
The Supreme Court issued notice to the BCI seeking its response to the petition. It also directed that no punitive action should be taken against NALSAR students or faculty members at the instance of the BCI or any state bar council.
During the hearing, counsel representing the BCI informed the bench that the disputed circular had already been withdrawn.
The matter has been posted for further hearing after two weeks.
The controversy erupted on August 13 when the BCI directed all state bar councils not to enrol graduates of NALSAR’s 2026 batch as advocates until further orders. The decision triggered a strong reaction, including widespread criticism on social media, following which the council revised its position.
In its initial communication, BCI chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra said the council was examining allegations concerning a campaign against Chief Justice Surya Kant’s participation in the university’s convocation.
The BCI had sought a report identifying those allegedly involved in the campaign and indicated that it would take a final decision on August 19 after examining the material available before it.
The council subsequently modified its earlier directive and permitted state bar councils to enrol the 2026 NALSAR graduates.
In its revised notification, the BCI said the “vast majority” of students were innocent and should not face consequences for the alleged misconduct of a few individuals.
The Supreme Court’s intervention has now put the focus on the balance between professional regulatory authority and students’ freedom to express dissent. The court’s direction against punitive action provides temporary relief to the affected students and faculty while the legal challenge remains pending.
