Subscribe
Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
A group of 441 alumni of Hyderabad’s National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR) University of Law has condemned the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) intervention in the controversy over students’ opposition to inviting Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to the university’s 2026 convocation, terming the council’s actions “unconstitutional, arbitrary and inhumane”.
In a letter to BCI chairman and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Rajya Sabha member Manan Kumar Mishra, the alumni said the council had no jurisdiction to enquire into students and faculty for expressing their views on an internal university matter. They also objected to the BCI’s initial decision to prevent the entire 2026 graduating batch from enrolling as advocates.
On August 13, the BCI directed State Bar Councils not to enrol NALSAR’s 2026 graduates as advocates and sought a report from Vice-Chancellor Srikrishna Deva Rao identifying students and faculty allegedly involved in organising the campaign against the CJI’s invitation. The enrolment bar was withdrawn within hours following widespread criticism, although the BCI initially said an enquiry would continue. Later, a third clarification was issued, with the BCI chairman saying that even the enquiry would not take place.
The alumni said the language used in the BCI’s first communication was particularly troubling, alleging that it sought to identify students and faculty who had drafted, circulated or publicised the representation, organised meetings or communicated with the media.
Such activities, they argued, fell within the ambit of free speech. The letter criticised the BCI for using terms such as “groupism”, “dirty politics”, “nasty politics” and “instigating and misguiding students”, saying such language was unbecoming of a statutory body entrusted with regulating legal education and the legal profession.
“The BCI has no role in regulating matters of free speech on university campuses,” the alumni said, arguing that its statutory role in legal education was confined to promoting legal education and laying down standards.
They said the students had merely communicated their views to the NALSAR Vice-Chancellor and that the matter was internal to the university. “It was no occasion for a statutory body entrusted with regulating the profession and the standards of legal education to call for a witch hunt of students and faculty,” the alumni said.
The controversy began after around 450 NALSAR students from the graduating batch objected to the invitation extended to CJI Surya Kant to attend the university’s convocation. The students cited the CJI’s remarks during a July hearing concerning alleged police excesses against students protesting at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar over NEET-related issues. During the hearing, the CJI had declined an urgent request to view videos of alleged police action, saying the court did not have time to watch them.
The alumni said disagreement with the students’ position could not justify attempts to curtail their right to free speech. Universities, they said, must remain spaces where students can question authority and experiment with ideas.
“Students script the future of this country,” the letter said, arguing that legal education in particular required an environment in which students could question fundamental assumptions about state power and understand the importance of non-arbitrariness and the rule of law.
The alumni also criticised what they described as the BCI’s disregard for students’ mental well-being, saying coercive threats against young law students could place them under “tremendous pressure”.
They urged the BCI to deal with disagreements through dialogue rather than coercion and said the episode should prompt the council to reconsider how it approaches students and universities.
