The Supreme Court has questioned the Bar Council of India’s intervention against NALSAR University of Law’s 2026 graduating students after they objected to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant being invited as convocation chief guest. The Court said the BCI cannot discipline law students whose conduct falls under their university until they graduate and enrol as advocates under applicable law.
What did the Supreme Court say about the BCI?
A bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana questioned the BCI’s decision concerning the NALSAR students. The issue arose after the BCI moved against students who had campaigned against the proposed invitation of CJI Surya Kant to their 2026 convocation.
The Court made it clear that the BCI’s role in legal education does not give it disciplinary authority over students who are still enrolled at a university.
“As far as the conduct of law students is concerned, the Bar Council of India has neither jurisdiction nor statutory competence. That falls exclusively within the domain of the educational institution or university. There cannot be any dispute about that. After a student graduates and registers himself or herself as an advocate, the Bar Council comes into the picture. It is then the statutory authority responsible for regulating advocates. But none of these students had enrolled as advocates, “Bar and Bench quoted the court as saying.
Why did NALSAR students object to CJI Surya Kant?
The controversy began after students from NALSAR’s 2026 graduating batch objected to the proposed invitation of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as the chief guest for their convocation. The students expressed their concerns over remarks made by the CJI during a Supreme Court hearing concerning fake degrees and subsequently wrote to the university, urging it to reconsider the invitation.
The remarks, which drew significant backlash, involved the CJI referring to individuals who allegedly use fraudulent academic credentials to enter or target established professional systems as “parasites” and comparing them to “cockroaches” entering fields such as the media, social media, and activism.
BCI action against NALSAR students
On August 13, the BCI directed state bar councils not to enrol students from NALSAR’s 2026 graduating batch who were linked to the campaign against the proposed invitation.
The decision triggered strong criticism from lawyers and members of the public. The BCI withdrew the order within hours. The Council later said that the proceedings against the students had been closed and BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra apologised for any hurt caused by the earlier action.
CJI Surya Kant also criticised the BCI move
CJI Surya Kant had earlier questioned why the BCI had intervened in the matter. He said the issue was a dialogue between him and the students and maintained that students have the right to protest peacefully.
“Naturally, this is absolutely uncalled for. It’s a dialogue between students and me. Who are they to raise an issue? This is totally uncalled for. In my student days I have been actively involved in student activities. Assuming, even if they are wrong, they have a right to protest. BCI doesn’t have any business,” Bar and Bench quoted CJI Kant as saying.
Bureau Report
Leave a Reply