Chief Justice of India Surya Kant recently delivered a sharp rebuke to the Bar Council of India (BCI) for its attempt to penalize law students from NALSAR Hyderabad over their right to protest. The Supreme Court unequivocally stated that students cannot face disciplinary action for expressing their views, emphasizing that the BCI overstepped its jurisdiction in the matter.
Background to the NALSAR Student Protest
The controversy began when approximately 70 graduating students from NALSAR's 2026 batch objected to CJI Surya Kant being invited as the chief guest for their convocation ceremony. Their discomfort stemmed from remarks the CJI made during a July 22 hearing concerning allegations of police excesses against protesters at Jantar Mantar. During those proceedings, the Chief Justice had reportedly told a lawyer seeking an urgent hearing, "Don't waste our time," and when offered videos of alleged police action, responded, "We are not interested in videos; we don't have time to watch." Students argued that these remarks appeared dismissive of citizen concerns, making them uncomfortable with receiving degrees from him.
Bar Council's Controversial Order
In response to the student protest, the Bar Council of India issued a circular that initially sought to prevent the entire 2026 graduating batch of NALSAR from enrolling as advocates. The BCI's communication also criticized certain faculty members, alleging that "groupism and dirty politics" within the academic staff had instigated and misguided the students, deeming it a "very serious matter."
Supreme Court Intervention and CJI's Stance
The issue quickly escalated to the Supreme Court. A bench led by CJI Surya Kant heard the matter after Senior Advocate K Parameshwar brought it to their attention. Although the BCI had withdrawn its controversial order preventing enrollment prior to the hearing, the Supreme Court took formal notice of the situation.
CJI Surya Kant was vocal in his criticism of the BCI's initial intervention. He asserted that students possess an inherent right to express disagreement, even if their perspectives are considered incorrect. "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," he declared. Senior Advocate Parameshwar echoed this sentiment, arguing that the regulator should not interfere in internal university affairs.
Outcome and Future Steps
The Supreme Court formally recorded the BCI's withdrawal of its earlier communication. Crucially, the court issued directives ensuring that no disciplinary or punitive measures would be taken against any students, faculty members, or national law universities in connection with the controversy. The CJI also took the opportunity to encourage the NALSAR students to pursue their legal careers and extended an invitation for them to join the Supreme Court Bar. Meanwhile, NALSAR Vice-Chancellor Professor Srikrishna Deva Rao indicated that the university would examine the permissibility of any inquiry under its existing rules and governance framework before proceeding.