Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairperson and Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra has tendered an apology to law students amid the controversy surrounding the NALSAR University of Law convocation, acknowledging that the developments of the past few days had caused “concern and anguish” within a section of the student community.
In an Independence Day communication addressed to members of the legal fraternity, particularly law students, Mishra said that whenever students feel aggrieved, their concerns warrant being heard with “patience, sensitivity and respect”. He expressed “sincere regret” if any aspect of the controversy, including his words or correspondence, had hurt the sentiments of students.
Mishra emphasised that an expression of regret should not be construed through the prism of institutional prestige or personal ego, but rather as an acknowledgement that the concerns and sentiments of students command due regard.
The BCI Chairperson’s intervention assumes significance against the backdrop of the controversy involving the 2026 graduating batch of NALSAR and the participation of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant at the university’s convocation.
The controversy had intensified after students raised objections concerning the invitation extended to the CJI as the chief guest. The subsequent decision of the BCI to direct State Bar Councils not to enrol the NALSAR 2026 graduating batch as advocates until further orders triggered a sharp legal and institutional debate concerning the scope of the BCI’s regulatory jurisdiction and the consequences that could flow from student dissent.
The BCI later rescinded the direction and closed the proceedings concerning the graduating students, maintaining that the students had no role in any disturbance.
The issue subsequently came before the Supreme Court, where a Bench headed by CJI Surya Kant questioned the BCI’s intervention. The Court underscored the students’ entitlement to express their views and peacefully protest, while also questioning the rationale for the BCI’s intervention in a controversy concerning the CJI and students.
Against this backdrop, Mishra’s latest communication adopts a markedly conciliatory tenor, invoking constitutionalism, institutional comity and the principles of democratic dissent.
He described students of National Law Universities and other premier Centres of Legal Education as among the country’s most informed and discerning young citizens, emphasising that their legal education equips them to engage with constitutional values, the rule of law, fairness and the audi alteram partem principle which is the foundational requirement that all sides must be heard before an informed conclusion is reached.
Mishra further stressed that law students are capable of exercising their own independent judgment and “do not require anyone to decide for them”. He asserted that students should not be subjected to pressure or influence from any quarter.
The BCI Chairperson also underscored the institutional significance of National Law Universities within India’s legal education ecosystem. According to him, the conduct and choices of students at leading law schools have ramifications extending beyond an individual controversy, given that these institutions are training grounds for future advocates, senior advocates, academics, legal scholars and members of the judiciary.
“Peaceful disagreement, questioning and protest” are, Mishra said, integral attributes of a constitutional democracy. Students must remain free to articulate their views. At the same time, he noted that the legal tradition also requires an issue to be reconsidered objectively when additional facts or clarifications become available.
Importantly, Mishra maintained that there is no inherent inconsistency between articulating a genuine grievance and subsequently reassessing the issue in light of further clarification. Such an approach, he suggested, is consistent with the intellectual discipline expected of members of the legal profession.
On the contentious question of participation in the convocation, Mishra acknowledged the singular significance of the ceremony in the life of a graduating student and the student’s family. He described it as the culmination of years of academic endeavour and an important transition into professional life.
He made it clear that the decision to attend or abstain from the convocation must remain with the students themselves. No student, he said, should be compelled either to participate or to stay away. His appeal was that such a decision be arrived at autonomously, after considering the controversy in its entirety and exercising independent judgment.
The BCI Chairperson further highlighted the enduring institutional relationship between the Judiciary, the Bar, universities and law students, observing that it transcends any transient controversy. Differences of opinion, even when strongly expressed, must ultimately yield to dialogue, clarification and mutual respect.
The statement also carries a broader constitutional message concerning institutional autonomy and the intellectual independence of law students. Mishra said the BCI regards students as the future of the legal profession and that their dignity, independence of thought and legitimate concerns must be respected. Simultaneously, he stressed that dialogue, mutual respect and fidelity to constitutional values remain indispensable to the professional culture they are preparing to inherit.
Calling for reconciliation, Mishra urged that the controversy not be allowed to acquire a “political or extraneous colour” through outside influence. He said students possess sufficient maturity and discernment to independently examine the facts, consider the clarifications offered and arrive at their own conclusions.
The statement effectively places the emphasis on institutional dialogue rather than coercive intervention, while reaffirming the autonomy of students to make decisions free from external pressure.
Mishra concluded by invoking the constitutional ethos of independent thought and responsibility, observing that the ability to listen to divergent viewpoints and arrive at conclusions guided by reason, fairness and constitutional principles would remain the greatest strength of students who may eventually occupy positions of authority across the Bar, Bench and legal academia.
The apology and conciliatory appeal come at a crucial juncture in the NALSAR episode, which has raised significant questions concerning the regulatory powers of the BCI, the professional enrolment of law graduates, the autonomy of legal education institutions and, most importantly, the constitutional protection accorded to peaceful dissent and freedom of expression.
Mishra signed the communication in his capacity as Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India, and BCI Chairperson, extending Independence Day greetings to law students, teachers, members of the Bar and citizens.
The post BCI Chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra apologises to Law Students amid NALSAR convocation controversy appeared first on India Legal.