No institution beyond scrutiny: NALSAR Student Bar Council condemns BCI circulars, demands apology

The Student Bar Council (SBC) at the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR) University of Law has issued a statement condemning Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra for issuing circulars seeking disciplinary action against students and faculty.

The statement noted that Mishra's X post had not withdrawn his claim that "a handful of teachers and outsiders" had instigated students. The SBC is demanding a formal apology for the remarks.

"The current chairperson's actions are unbecoming of his post and the constitutional directives that he is expected to uphold. Even the communication on X from the BCI Chairperson did not withdraw the allegations made. We demand an apology from the BCI Chairperson for making such objectionable comments," it said.

Rejecting the BCI's idea that "constitutional fidelity requires silence", it said that no institution, including the Supreme Court and the CJI, is beyond legitimate scrutiny.

"The rights to dissent, protest, criticise public institutions, and demand accountability from those who wield power lie at the heart of democratic and republican government. No institution, Including the Supreme Court and the CJI are beyond legitimate scrutiny in a constitutional democracy, and judicial accountability is not the antithesis of judicial independence but one of its essential safeguards," it said.

The statement, posted on Independence Day, acknowledges the rescission of the letter and the extinguishment of the cause of action, but records the students' condemnation of the move.

It argues that under Section 7 of the Advocates Act, the only power BCI possesses over universities is regarding setting standards of professional conduct and promotion of legal education.

"Furthermore, Section 24A of the Advocates Act, 1961 restricts disqualifications from enrolment strictly to convictions for criminal offences, which did not take place in the present case. To then direct State Bar Councils to restrict the enrolment of students from the Batch of 2026 does not align with the BCI's statutory functions," it added.

The SBC has also criticised BCI's reliance on Harish Uppal v. Union of India as "fundamentally misplaced" owing to the fact that it only concerned BCI's disciplinary and regulatory authority over advocates in the specific context of strikes and boycotts that obstruct the administration of justice.

"To lift the Court's observations from the context in which they were made and deploy them to justify an entirely different exercise of power is to stretch Harish Uppal beyond recognition. The BCI cannot manufacture jurisdiction by citing a judgment that never granted it," it said.

Further, it said that Section 49 of the Act is a rule-making provision that cannot create fresh enrolment conditions beyond what parliament enacted and that seeking the identities of students, faculty and alumni involved was an intrusive violation of privacy.

The statement also placed the episode in the context of Mishra's position as a sitting Rajya Sabha MP elected on a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ticket, saying the push to identify "outsiders" behind the dissent mirrored a familiar pattern of recasting dissent as conspiracy.

The SBC thanked NALSAR's administration, including Vice-Chancellor Srikrishna Deva Rao, and its alumni for their solidarity.

The row began after outgoing NALSAR students urged the Vice-Chancellor to reconsider inviting CJI Surya Kant as chief guest at their convocation.

This was followed by two BCI circulars. The first circular barred the entire 2026 batch of NALSAR from being enrolled as advocates. The second circular, passed within hours of the first, reversed the decision on halting enrolment but retained the decision for an inquiry into the persons instrumental in initiating, organising, or mobilising the campaign to protest the invitation of the CJI.

After the second circular, NALSAR Vice Chancellor Srikrishna Deva Rao issued a press release stating that the university would first examine, under its governance regulations, whether such an inquiry is a constitutional exercise of its powers.

However, just a few minutes later the BCI Chairman took to X to state that there will not be any inquiry and the issue would be considered as closed.

[Read Letter]