NALSAR row: SC protects students, calls BCI intervention ‘unnecessary’

The Supreme Court on Friday criticised the Bar Council of India (BCI) for intervening against NALSAR University of Law students who had protested against Chief Justice of India Surya Kant being invited as the chief guest at their convocation.

The controversy began when graduating students from NALSAR’s 2026 batch wrote to the university administration seeking reconsideration of the invitation to CJI Kant. They cited concerns over his remarks and response to allegations of police action against students protesting at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar.

Following the students’ letter, the BCI directed state bar councils not to enrol graduates from the 2026 batch. It also sought an inquiry into the conduct of students and faculty members, alleging that the protest might have been instigated by outside groups.

The move drew widespread criticism from legal circles and the public, prompting the BCI to withdraw the enrolment restriction and drop the proceedings against the students and their batch.

The matter subsequently reached the Supreme Court, where senior advocate K Parameshwar argued that the BCI had no role in the internal affairs of a university.

CJI Kant agreed that the regulatory body’s intervention was unwarranted, describing the disagreement as a matter between him and the students.

“This is a dialogue between the students and me. Who are they to raise this issue? It is completely unnecessary,” the Chief Justice observed.

Defending the students’ right to express disagreement, CJI Kant said young people must be allowed the space to protest peacefully, even when their views or statements might be mistaken. Recalling his own participation in student activities, he maintained that an incorrect statement made in one’s youth did not extinguish the right to dissent.

The Supreme Court issued notice in the case and passed an interim order protecting students and faculty members of NALSAR and other National Law Universities from punitive action in connection with the controversy.

Although the BCI informed the bench that the disputed circular had already been withdrawn and the proceedings dropped, the court gave it two weeks to file a formal response. It also clarified that no adverse action could be taken against NALSAR students over the incidents cited in the challenged communications.

In a conciliatory gesture, CJI Kant invited the graduating students to enrol with the Supreme Court Bar and said they could be considered for legal-aid panels and training programmes.

The students had argued in their letter that they were uncomfortable receiving their degrees from CJI Kant, alleging that his recent public position appeared dismissive of complaints of police excesses against protesters.

With agency inputs