The Supreme Court on Friday said students have a right to protest and that the Bar Council of India has “no business” stopping them. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant was hearing the matter related to the BCI’s circular banning enrollment of NALSAR University of Law’s entire 2026 graduating batch as advocates. “It’s a dialogue between me and the students. Who are they to interfere?” the CJI said.
The controversy began after reports of a campaign by some students at NALSAR, one of India’s premier national law universities in Hyderabad, opposing CJI Surya Kant’s participation in the university’s convocation. The BCI responded by directing all State Bar Councils to freeze enrollment for the entire 2026 graduating batch until further orders. It also sought a detailed inquiry from the university to identify students who organised or participated in the campaign. The Council argued that disrespect towards the country’s highest judicial office was inconsistent with the values expected from future lawyers.
The BCI’s circular effectively held the professional futures of an entire graduating class over the reported actions of an unidentified few. The Council is the statutory body whose enrollment decisions determine whether law graduates can practice in India. By freezing enrollment for the full batch, the BCI blocked students who had completed five years of legal education from entering the profession, regardless of whether they had any connection to the reported campaign.
After the circular faced widespread criticism on and off social media, the BCI reversed course in stages. It first withdrew the blanket enrollment ban, saying most students were innocent and had no role in the reported campaign. The Council initially continued with its proposed inquiry into those allegedly involved. BCI chairman Mannan Mishra subsequently announced that even those proceedings had been closed after finding the graduating batch had no involvement in any disturbance.
The CJI’s remarks on Friday completed the reversal. A regulatory body had banned an entire graduating class from practicing law, reversed under pressure, and was then told by the person whose authority it claimed to be defending that students have every right to protest and the Council had no standing to intervene.
