Supreme Court condemns BCI circular on NALSAR enrolment freeze; CJI questions move to ‘come between’ students and him

The Supreme Court on Friday (August 14, 2026) strongly condemned the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) now-withdrawn circular directing all State bar councils not to enrol any 2026 batch graduate of NALSAR University of Law as advocates, saying students have a right to protest.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said the BCI had no business playing havoc in the futures of NALSAR students, adding that he himself has been a student and a political one. “Who is the BCI to come between the students and me? The Bar Council of India has no business to order such inquiries against students,” CJI Kant said categorically.

The NALSAR students have protested against inviting the Chief Justice of India to the university for their convocation ceremony. The students’ ire draws from the CJI’s reported comments and use of the term “cockroach” in reference to youths.

In its initial communication before the withdrawal, the BCI had directed the State Bar Councils to halt the graduates’ enrolment until further orders, pending an inquiry into a recent campaign by students opposing the proposed participation of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant in the university’s convocation.

on Friday (August 14, 2026), the Supreme Court ordered that no coercive actions would be taken against NALSAR students and administrators on the basis of the incidents mentioned in the BCI circulars issued on August 13.

The court also sought an explanation in the form of an affidavit from the BCI about the issuance of these circulars.

Senior advocate K. Parameshwar said the BCI had no disciplinary jurisdiction over students and what happens within the four walls of a university.

Mr. Parameshwar said the actions taken by the BCI tantamount to a threat to choke the future and livelihoods of students. He said the court should investigate whether the BCI circulars were issued after a resolution passed by the body as a whole or whether it was an initiative of the BCI chairperson, senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra.

The court agreed with Mr. Parameshwar, directing the BCI to come clear on this point.

The order was passed on an oral mentioning made by Mr. Parameshwar for an early hearing of the petition against the BCI.

Advocate Radhika Gautam, appearing for the BCI, agreed to get instructions and file the affidavit.

The court issued notice on the petition represented by Mr. Parameshwar, and posted the case for hearing next week.