The Supreme Court also sought an explanation in the form of an affidavit from the BCI about the issuance of these circulars. File
| Photo Credit: S. Subramanium
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Friday (August 14, 2026) questioned the motives behind an aborted move by the Bar Council of India to stop the professional enrolment of the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research’s (NALSAR) batch of 2026, terming it an unwarranted interference in the ongoing “dialogue” between him and the students who do not want him as the chief guest for their convocation ceremony.
“Who is the Bar Council of India (BCI) to come between the students and me? The Bar Council of India has no business here… It is a dialogue between the students and me. Why is the BCI unnecessarily interfering?” asked Chief Justice Kant, heading a three-judge Bench, during a hearing against the BCI’s actions.
The court barred the BCI from taking any coercive actions against NALSAR students and staff and gave the Council two weeks to explain its directives.
‘Campaign against CJI’
The students had written to the law university’s administration, expressing their antipathy towards inviting the Chief Justice. Their objection had followed nationwide outrage over the CJI’s oral remarks referring to certain individuals as “parasites” and “cockroaches”. The students had also found offensive the top judge’s disinclination to view videos of police brutality against students protesting the NEET-UG paper leaks in Delhi on July 20.
On August 13, BCI chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra, who is a BJP MP and a senior advocate, wrote to the NALSAR Vice-Chancellor seeking a report identifying the persons behind the “campaign” against the CJI. The same letter prohibited State Bar Councils from enrolling any “2026-passed-out student” from NALSAR.
The letter was quickly dropped in the face of intense public criticism. A second BCI communication, scripted within just two hours of the first one, declared the “vast majority” of NALSAR students “innocent”, but retained the direction to NALSAR to inquire and submit a report on the people behind the protest. NALSAR had released a statement that it would have to look into the constitutionality of such an inquiry. The BCI eventually withdrew its letters entirely on August 14.
‘Chilling effect’
However, the withdrawal of the letters did not stop the Supreme Court from condemning the BCI. Chief Justice Kant said the fundamental right to a profession cannot be threatened for expressing dissent.
“I was involved in student activities and campaigns too,” the Chief Justice said.
The court was hearing an oral mentioning by senior advocate K. Parameshwar, appearing for two former NALSAR students, seeking an urgent hearing and judicial action against the BCI.
“By launching into a fishing expedition and seeking to set up a case of wrongdoing from a genuine expression of grievance by students on a matter internal to the university, the BCI letters create a chilling effect on the freedom of speech, expression, and association among students. Legal education creates the space for questioning and courageous expression of one’s ideas,” Mr. Parameshwar submitted.
‘BCI has no jurisdiction’
The court barred the BCI from taking coercive actions against NALSAR students, faculty, and administrators on the basis of the incidents mentioned in the BCI letters issued on August 13. The court gave the BCI two weeks to file an affidavit explaining its actions.
The petition said neither the Advocates Act, 1961 nor the BCI’s Rules of Legal Education permit the BCI to regulate students’ conduct or direct universities to “inquire” against them. The BCI’s powers extended only to advocates and for prescribing standards of legal education, it said.
“The BCI has no jurisdiction over the admission of persons as advocates on the rolls of the State Bar Councils,” the petition said.
BCI overreach
Mr. Parameshwar submitted that the BCI letters virtually attempted to add ‘expression of dissent’ as a ground for disqualification for enrolment as an advocate. A person can be stopped from enrolment only in cases of conviction for offences involving moral turpitude or under the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, or in the case of dismissal from government service on a charge involving moral turpitude, he said.
The petition compared the current overreach of the BCI to an earlier episode when it had tried to bar anyone above 45 years of age from enrolling as an advocate. The Supreme Court had struck down that rule introduced by the BCI in a 1995 judgment in Indian Council of Legal Aid & Advice versus Bar Council of India.
Mr. Parameshwar said the BCI’s attempt to expose the identities of those who wrote to the university administration against inviting the CJI for the convocation was a violation of protected speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. He said even the modification and ultimate withdrawal of the letters would not suffice to undo the “chilling effect” caused by the actions of the BCI.
“Passing a blanket direction prohibiting all State Bar Councils from enrolling any 2026-passed-out student of NALSAR Law University without hearing a single student is inherently arbitrary and in stark violation of the principles of natural justice,” the senior counsel contended.
Published – August 14, 2026 11:30 am IST
