The Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant raised objections during a recent hearing regarding a circular issued by the Bar Council of India (BCI) that affected students of NALSAR University of Law. The circular was related to the students’ objections to the CJI’s participation as the chief guest at the university’s convocation. The CJI expressed skepticism about the BCI’s authority to intervene in what he described as a direct dialogue between him and the students.
CJI Kant articulated his views, stating, “BCI has nothing to do with this. We are with you. Students have written a letter to me. It’s a dialogue between students and me. Who are they to unnecessarily issue a circular?” His remarks highlighted the tension between the judiciary and the regulatory body overseeing legal education and practice in India.
This sentiment arose during a bench session that included Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, focusing on a plea from NALSAR students challenging two circulars issued by the BCI on August 10, 2026. The court subsequently issued a notice to the BCI, asking for a response to the students’ plea.
Background on the BCI’s Circulars
The initial directive from the BCI prohibited the enrolment of NALSAR students graduating in 2026 until further instructions. The BCI sought a report from the Vice-Chancellor of NALSAR regarding the campaign against the CJI’s participation, along with details of individuals said to be involved in the protest organisation.
<h4However, within hours of the initial announcement, the BCI withdrew the enrolment restriction. This decision was made following deliberations which revealed that the majority of the 2026 graduates were innocent and had no intention to undermine the CJI’s authority. However, the BCI also indicated the possibility of further actions based on the Vice-Chancellor’s findings.
The CJI remarked that students ought to be allowed to express their views within the bounds of legality, emphasising that their voices should be heard even if their viewpoints are seen as erroneous. This perspective reflects a commitment to nurturing an environment where dissent is acknowledged, especially in academic institutions.
Court’s Ruling on Student Status and Future Actions
In light of the developments, the Supreme Court noted the withdrawal of the BCI’s objectionable circular and mandated the BCI to provide a written response within two weeks. The court also ruled that no punitive measures should be taken against any NALSAR students concerning the circulated letters in the interim period.
The CJI further remarked that institutions should adopt a receptive attitude to criticism, particularly regarding student concerns, as they are at the beginning of their professional journeys. He highlighted the importance of a “large-hearted” approach towards dissent and the need to facilitate constructive dialogue.
In a lighter moment, CJI Kant encouraged the students to expedite their enrolment processes and join the Supreme Court Bar Association. He suggested they could be selected for legal aid cases, stating, “You tell all the students to get a license at the earliest. Join the Supreme Court Bar. We will empanel them for legal aid cases. It will be a befitting answer to all those who are impeding their career.”
Late on the night of August 13, 2026, BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra announced via social media that the proceedings against the 2026 NALSAR batch would be entirely dropped. This decision was based on feedback from senior advocates, law students, and various stakeholders, indicating that the graduating class had played no part in the protests against the CJI.
Long or Short, get news the way you like. No ads. No redirections. Download Newspin and Stay Alert, The CSR Journal Mobile app, for fast, crisp, clean updates!
