Supreme Court Slams BCI Over NALSAR Enrolment Directive, Says Students Have Right to Protest

August 14, 2026 : The Supreme Court on Friday strongly questioned the Bar Council of India (BCI) over its intervention against students of the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR), Hyderabad, after the Council had initially directed that graduates of the university’s 2026 batch should not be enrolled as advocates.

A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohan, questioned the BCI’s authority to intervene in what appeared to be an internal university matter. The Bench also emphasised that students cannot be subjected to punitive consequences merely for exercising their right to express views or participate in peaceful and lawful protests.

The controversy arose after a group of NALSAR students objected to the proposed participation of CJI Surya Kant as the chief guest at the university’s convocation. The students had reportedly expressed reservations over certain observations attributed to the Chief Justice during proceedings concerning allegations of police excesses against protesters.

Following the students’ campaign, the BCI issued a communication directing State Bar Councils not to enrol graduates belonging to the NALSAR 2026 batch. The Council also sought information from the university regarding students, faculty members and others allegedly involved in organising or facilitating the campaign.

The BCI’s action subsequently came under criticism and was first modified and later withdrawn. During the Supreme Court proceedings, BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra stated that proceedings against the 2026 batch had been closed after the Council concluded that the students had no role in any disturbance or movement.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar questioned the BCI’s intervention and submitted that the Council did not have authority to regulate activities that essentially concerned the functioning of a university and its students.

CJI Surya Kant expressed strong reservations over the BCI’s decision to intervene. He observed that the matter essentially involved a dialogue between the Chief Justice and the students and questioned why the BCI had stepped into the issue. The Chief Justice made it clear that even if students were mistaken in their views, they could not be prevented from expressing those views or protesting lawfully.

The Bench also highlighted the importance of dissent and discussion in academic institutions. Referring to his own experience as a student, CJI Surya Kant indicated that universities should provide space for students to express disagreement and participate in peaceful democratic activities.

The Supreme Court further directed that no punitive or criminal action should be taken against NALSAR students or faculty members in connection with the incidents referred to in the BCI communications. The protection was also indicated to extend to students and faculty members of national law universities and other universities pending further proceedings.

The Court issued notice to the BCI and directed it to file its response within two weeks. It also directed that the enrolment of the affected NALSAR graduates should not be obstructed.

In a conciliatory gesture, CJI Surya Kant encouraged the students to proceed with their professional enrolment. He also invited them to join the Supreme Court Bar Association and participate in legal-aid activities.

The Supreme Court’s intervention has brought into focus the limits of the BCI’s regulatory powers, university autonomy and the constitutional protection available to students expressing dissent. The proceedings also underline an important principle: professional consequences should not ordinarily be used as a means of suppressing lawful expression, particularly when students are expressing their views on matters involving institutional functioning, constitutional values and public affairs.