The Supreme Court on Friday strongly disapproved of the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) intervention against students of the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR), Hyderabad, after the Council 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. Mohana, questioned the BCI’s authority to intervene in an internal university matter and emphasised that students cannot be penalised merely for exercising their right to protest.
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 expressed reservations over certain observations attributed to the CJI during proceedings concerning allegations of police excesses against protesters.
The BCI subsequently issued a communication directing State Bar Councils not to enrol graduates belonging to NALSAR’s 2026 batch. It also sought information from the university concerning students, faculty members or others allegedly involved in organising or facilitating the campaign.
The move, however, triggered considerable criticism, following which the BCI first modified and subsequently withdrew its action. On Friday, BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra announced 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 Supreme Court hearing, Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar questioned the BCI’s intervention, submitting that the Council had no authority to regulate what was essentially an issue concerning activities within a university.
CJI Surya Kant expressed strong reservations about the BCI’s approach, observing that the issue constituted a dialogue between him and the students. He questioned the Council’s decision to intervene and remarked that even where students may be mistaken, they retain the right to express their views and protest lawfully.
The Chief Justice also referred to his own experience as a student and underscored the importance of permitting dissent in academic institutions. The Bench indicated that peaceful and lawful student protest cannot, by itself, become the basis for punitive consequences.
The Court further directed that no punitive or criminal action be taken against NALSAR students or faculty members in connection with the incidents referred to in the BCI communications. It also made clear that similar protection would extend to students and faculty of national law universities and other universities pending further proceedings.
The Bench issued notice to the BCI and directed it to file its response within two weeks. It also asked 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 and even invited them to join the Supreme Court Bar Association and participate in legal-aid work.
The Supreme Court’s intervention has consequently brought the focus back to the delicate balance between the BCI’s regulatory authority over legal education and the autonomy of universities, as well as the constitutional protection available to students expressing dissent.
The proceedings also underscore a broader judicial concern: professional consequences cannot ordinarily be deployed as a means of suppressing lawful expression, particularly where students are articulating their views on matters concerning institutional and constitutional values.
The post Supreme Court slams BCI over NALSAR enrolment circular, says students have Right to Protest appeared first on India Legal.