NLSIU students, alumni seek BCI's 'apology' to NALSAR; oppose Manan Kumar Mishra, CJI's presence at convocation

NLSIU Students and Alumni

The collective voice of 165 graduating students, 409 current students, and 128 alumni from the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru, represents a significant student and alumni body's dissent. Their statement, released on Independence Day, underscores a deep concern over the Bar Council of India's (BCI) perceived overreach and unconstitutional actions. The students and alumni not only condemned the BCI's withdrawn directive that sought to prevent the enrolment of NALSAR University of Law's 2026 graduates but also extended their solidarity to the NALSAR student community. This unified stance suggests a broader unease within the legal education sector regarding regulatory interference and the protection of student rights.

Their argument hinges on the interpretation of the Advocates Act, 1961, asserting that the BCI's powers do not extend to arbitrarily denying enrolment to qualified advocates. They specifically cite Section 24A of the Act, which outlines grounds for disqualification, and argue that alleged disrespect towards a judicial officer is not a valid basis for such denial. Furthermore, they question the unilateral authority of the BCI chairperson to issue such directives, pointing to the Council's composition under Section 4 of the Act. This challenge to the BCI's authority is framed as a direct assault on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, invoking Rabindranath Tagore's ideals of a fearless mind.

Bar Council of India

The Bar Council of India (BCI) finds itself at the center of a significant controversy following its now-withdrawn directive to State Bar Councils not to enrol students from NALSAR University of Law's 2026 graduating batch. This action, initially issued on August 13, was reportedly a response to objections raised by a section of NALSAR students regarding the invitation of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as the chief guest for their convocation. The BCI's subsequent withdrawal of the order, however, has not appeased the protesting students and alumni from NLSIU, who are demanding an unconditional apology.

The BCI's directive is viewed by the NLSIU signatories as exceeding its statutory mandate under the Advocates Act, 1961. While the Act empowers the BCI to set professional conduct standards and promote legal education, it does not grant the authority to interfere with the enrolment process of otherwise qualified advocates. The students argue that the BCI's attempt to link enrolment with alleged disrespect towards a judicial officer is an overreach and potentially violates students' fundamental rights. The controversy also brings into question the BCI chairperson's authority to issue such directives unilaterally.

Manan Kumar Mishra and CJI Surya Kant

The presence of BCI Chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra and Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant at the NLSIU convocation has become a point of contention, drawing opposition from students and alumni. A section of NALSAR students had previously raised objections to CJI Surya Kant's invitation as chief guest, reportedly due to comments he made concerning student protests in Delhi. This sentiment has been echoed by the NLSIU signatories, who are calling for a reconsideration of CJI Surya Kant's role at NALSAR and expressing their own disapproval of his attendance at NLSIU's convocation.

Furthermore, the NLSIU students and alumni have specifically voiced their disapproval of BCI Chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra attending their convocation without taking accountability for his conduct, particularly concerning the withdrawn NALSAR enrolment order. The NALSAR Student Bar Council has also criticized Mishra, demanding an apology for what they described as objectionable comments about students and faculty, and questioning the nature of an inquiry initiated by him, especially given his dual role as BCI chairperson and a BJP Rajya Sabha member. This dual role has raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the impartiality of the BCI's actions.