NALSAR Students Demand Apology After Bar Council Reverses Enrolment Ban

The Student Bar Council of NALSAR University of Law has condemned the Bar Council of India's (BCI) now-withdrawn decision to restrict the enrolment of the university's 2026 graduating batch. The students are demanding a formal apology from BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra over what they call objectionable comments.

In a statement issued on Friday, the student body acknowledged the withdrawal of the BCI's letters but insisted the incident must be condemned on statutory, constitutional and democratic grounds.

We acknowledge the rescission of the (BCI) letters and the extinguishment of the cause of action. However, even then, it is important for us to record our condemnation of this event at four levels: statutory, constitutional, first principles, and in light of the wider social realities of repression and unfreedom, the statement read.

What Was the Original Dispute?

On August 13, the Bar Council issued a circular instructing all State Bar Councils not to enrol any student who graduated from NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, in 2026 as an advocate until further orders.

BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra had asked the NALSAR Vice-Chancellor to submit an authenticated report within three days identifying those principally involved in initiating, organising, coordinating or mobilising a campaign against a proposed convocation guest.

The campaign arose after a section of the graduating class objected to the university's reported proposal to invite Chief Justice Surya Kant as chief guest for the forthcoming convocation. The students' protest 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.

Why Did Students Challenge the BCI's Authority?

The students questioned the BCI's statutory authority to restrict enrolment, pointing to Section 24A of the Advocates Act, 1961. They argued that this provision limits disqualification from enrolment to specified grounds, including conviction for a criminal offence, and that the action against the students did not align with the BCI's statutory functions.

The student body also objected to the BCI seeking details of those involved in the campaign, including students, faculty members, alumni, organisers and social-media administrators.

The letter seeks to surveil the identities of virtually everyone involved in the alleged campaign, including its initiators, drafters, organisers, coordinators, mobilisers, spokespersons, social-media administrators, office-bearers of student bodies, faculty, research scholars, alumni, and external participants. Asking for such details is an intrusive violation of privacy, considering that it involves revealing the identities of students, who may face potential long-term consequences, the students added.

What Did the Students Find Objectionable?

The Student Bar Council criticised the language used in the BCI communication, particularly references to groupism and dirty politics at the university and allegations that faculty members were misleading, misguiding and instigating students.

Calling the allegations unprofessional and unfounded, the students said peaceful dissent should not be treated as misconduct. They demanded an apology from the BCI chairperson for the remarks made against students and faculty, saying the episode raised wider questions about democratic space and the freedom to dissent.

How Did the Bar Council Respond?

After receiving significant backlash, the law body made a major U-turn, modifying its earlier order and clarifying that all students who graduated from NALSAR University of Law can enrol as advocates. In a late-night post, the bar council also decided to drop all proceedings against the 2026 graduating batch.

In its initial statement defending the restriction, the BCI had said: 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.

Despite the reversal, the students maintain that the incident warrants formal condemnation and an apology, arguing that the attempt to restrict enrolment exceeded the BCI's statutory mandate and threatened the principles of lawful dissent.