Days after the Bar Council of India (BCI) directed State Bar Councils to freeze the enrolment of NALSAR’s entire 2026 graduating batch, only to reverse the decision following strong criticism and a reprimand from the Supreme Court, BCI chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra has apologised to law students. He said students should “always remain free to express their views”.
In an Independence Day letter addressed to “young friends”, Mishra acknowledged that the events of the past few days had caused “concern and anguish” among some students.
“If anything connected with the present controversy, any of my words, or letter, has hurt the feelings of our law students, I sincerely regret and apologise for the same,” Mishra wrote.
He added that there should be no hesitation in expressing regret, as doing so was neither a matter of prestige nor ego, but an acknowledgment that students’ concerns and emotions were important.
The apology follows a controversy that erupted after students at the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR) in Hyderabad launched a campaign opposing the decision to invite Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as the chief guest for their convocation.
More than 450 students had submitted a representation to the university authorities, expressing concerns over recent judicial developments, including the handling of alleged police excesses during the July 20 Parliament march.
The BCI subsequently issued an August 13 order directing State Bar Councils not to enrol any member of NALSAR’s 2026 graduating class as an advocate.
The Council also sought information on those who had organised the student campaign and said it would take a final decision on August 19.
The decision sparked a broader debate over whether a statutory professional body could collectively penalise students who had not yet entered the legal profession for taking part in a protest.
BCI WITHDRAWS ORDER AFTER BACKLASH
After facing widespread criticism, the BCI changed its position and permitted NALSAR’s 2026 graduates to enrol, stating that the “vast majority” of students were innocent.
The Council later withdrew the proceedings entirely.
Mishra had earlier told India Today that “the matter stands closed” and that “everything has been withdrawn”.
He said the BCI existed to safeguard the rights and interests of law students and lawyers.
Despite the withdrawal, the episode raised questions about the BCI’s powers and the process through which its original directive had been issued.
SUPREME COURT CALLS BCI MOVE ‘ABSOLUTELY UNNECESSARY’
The issue also came before the Supreme Court, where a bench led by CJI Surya Kant criticised the BCI’s intervention.
The court described the withdrawn order as “absolutely unnecessary” and affirmed that students were entitled to protest.
It further ordered that neither NALSAR students nor faculty members should face punitive action at the direction of the BCI or State Bar Councils.
The Supreme Court also questioned the BCI’s involvement in what it characterised as a dialogue between students and the Chief Justice of India.
The controversy consequently raised a fundamental legal question: whether the BCI could exercise its supervisory authority over State Bar Councils to impose a blanket enrolment freeze on an entire graduating batch because some students had participated in a campaign.
WHAT DOES THE ADVOCATES ACT SAY?
Under the Advocates Act, 1961, the primary responsibility for admitting individuals to a State roll rests with State Bar Councils.
Section 6 authorises a State Bar Council to admit individuals as advocates on its roll and maintain that roll. Section 25 states that applications for enrolment must be submitted to the State Bar Council within whose jurisdiction the applicant intends to practise.
The BCI, however, has substantial supervisory authority. Section 7 grants it general supervision and control over State Bar Councils and allows it to establish standards for legal education and recognise universities whose law degrees make graduates eligible for enrolment.
Section 48B also empowers the BCI to issue directions to State Bar Councils concerning the proper and effective performance of their functions.
The Act separately lays down specific procedures for action against individuals who are already enrolled as advocates.
For example, Section 26(1) allows the BCI to remove a person’s name from a roll if it determines that the person obtained enrolment through misrepresentation of an essential fact, fraud or undue influence, provided the individual is given an opportunity to be heard.
Separate disciplinary provisions also exist for advocates accused of professional or other misconduct.
However, the NALSAR graduates had not yet been enrolled as advocates when the BCI issued its original order.
That distinction became a key part of the controversy, prompting questions about whether the BCI had the authority to collectively halt the enrolment of students before they had formally entered the legal profession.
A senior corporate lawyer employed by a media conglomerate, speaking to India Today Digital on condition of anonymity, alleged that the BCI chairperson had repeatedly used his office to issue orders or directions on matters that were, at best, within the jurisdiction of the Council.
The lawyer argued that the law had not granted the chairperson such powers and accused him of continuing to exercise them indiscriminately.
The lawyer further said that a statutory organisation responsible for regulating lawyers should be especially conscious of the boundaries of its jurisdiction, adding that allowing Mishra to remain in the position was undermining the credibility of the Council.
MISHRA SAYS STUDENTS NEED NO ONE TO DECIDE FOR THEM
In his latest letter, Mishra directly addressed the issue of student independence.
He described law students, particularly those studying at National Law Universities and other prominent legal institutions, as some of the country’s “most informed and discerning young citizens”.
According to Mishra, these students study the Constitution, the Rule of Law, fairness and the importance of considering all sides before reaching a conclusion. He said they were capable of forming their own independent opinions.
“They do not require anyone to decide for them. Nor should they be subjected to pressure or influence from any quarter,” he wrote.
Mishra highlighted the important role played by National Law Universities in Indian legal education and said the decisions of their students were closely observed throughout the legal education system.
He noted that graduates of these institutions would go on to become advocates, senior advocates, academics, scholars and judges, with some potentially reaching the highest levels of India’s legal and judicial system.
For that reason, he said, their choices could have significance extending beyond a particular event or controversy.
‘PEACEFUL DISAGREEMENT, QUESTIONING AND PROTEST ARE IMPORTANT’
Mishra also openly endorsed students’ right to disagree, question and protest.
He wrote that peaceful disagreement, questioning and protest were essential elements of a constitutional democracy and reiterated that students must remain free to express their opinions.
At the same time, he said the legal tradition required people to reassess their positions objectively when additional facts or clarifications became available.
“There is no inconsistency between expressing a genuine grievance and thereafter fairly considering a clarification,” Mishra said.
He also described the NALSAR convocation as a “very special occasion” in the lives of graduating students and their families after years of effort.
According to Mishra, the choice of whether to attend the ceremony should ultimately be left to the students.
He stressed that no student should be forced either to attend or to stay away from the convocation.
Instead, students should make their own decision after considering the entire matter and relying on their individual judgment.
‘LET THE STUDENTS EXAMINE THE MATTER THEMSELVES’
Mishra urged that the dispute be resolved through dialogue and mutual respect.
He said the relationship between the Judiciary, the Bar, universities and law students was deeper and more lasting than any temporary dispute.
While differences and strong opinions could emerge, he said, they should ultimately be resolved through dialogue, clarification and mutual respect.
Mishra said the BCI viewed law students as the future of the legal profession and maintained that their dignity, independence of thought and legitimate concerns must always be respected.
At the same time, he said dialogue, mutual respect and constitutional principles were equally important values for the profession students were preparing to enter.
He expressed hope that the issue would now be approached with fairness and a spirit of reconciliation.
Mishra also urged that outside influence should not give the controversy a “political or extraneous colour”.
He said law students were mature and discerning enough to assess the facts, consider the clarification provided and arrive at their own independent conclusions.
He called on students to examine the issue themselves and institutions to respect their independence of thought.
Mishra further appealed for sufficient space for dialogue and for all sides to move forward without bitterness wherever clarification had been provided.
CALLS FOR MISHRA’S RESIGNATION
The BCI’s original decision also led to demands for Mishra’s resignation.
Saurav Das, co-convenor of the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), called on Mishra to step down after the Supreme Court criticised the BCI’s intervention.
He argued that Mishra should accept moral responsibility and resign, while making a reference to the “cockroaches” campaign in his remarks on X.
AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi also questioned the actions of the BCI and its chairperson.
Owaisi pointed out that the BCI had initially instructed State Bar Councils not to enrol NALSAR’s 2026 graduates, but later withdrew the directive and ordered an inquiry into those who had organised the student campaign concerning the CJI’s participation in the convocation.
He questioned what authority the BCI or its chairperson had to take such action.
CJP CAMPAIGN ALSO LINKS BACK TO CJI REMARKS
The NALSAR dispute also emerged amid a separate political campaign stemming from remarks by CJI Surya Kant in which he referred to unemployed youths as “cockroaches”.
The comments led to the formation of the Cockroach Janata Party, which subsequently used the phrase as part of a broader campaign focused on issues affecting young people.
In the NALSAR dispute, the CJI has since supported the students’ right to dissent and protest, while the BCI has withdrawn its action against the graduating class.
Mishra’s latest letter appears aimed at bringing the controversy to a close by emphasising independent thinking, constitutional principles and dialogue.
He concluded by stressing that students would become future leaders of the Bar, the Bench and legal academia, and that their greatest strength would remain their ability to think independently, listen to differing perspectives and reach conclusions based on reason, fairness and the Constitution.
