BCI Modifies NALSAR Enrolment Order, Allows 2026 Graduates To Seek Enrolment

The Bar Council of India (BCI) on Thursday modified its earlier directions concerning NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, allowing all students who graduated from the university in 2026 to seek enrolment with the State Bar Council of their choice.

The development comes after the BCI had earlier directed all State Bar Councils not to enrol any 2026 law graduate of NALSAR as an advocate until further orders. The directive was issued amid an inquiry into an alleged organised campaign concerning the participation or invitation of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant at the university's convocation.

BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra announced the modification in a post on his official X handle, saying the Council had taken the decision after "detailed deliberation".

"All 2026 passed-out students of NALSAR will now be entitled to seek enrolment with the State Bar Council of their choice. The factual inquiry will continue, and further action will follow on the basis of the report," Mishra said.

He also stressed that students who had no role in the matter should not be affected by the inquiry.

"No student shall be made to suffer without any fault on his or her part," he added.

The BCI's factual inquiry, however, will continue. The Council had earlier sought an authenticated report from the NALSAR Vice-Chancellor regarding the persons allegedly instrumental in initiating, drafting, circulating, coordinating or mobilising the campaign.

The university was asked to identify, on the basis of verifiable material, individuals involved in organising meetings, communicating with the media, administering social-media groups used for coordination, or proposing or mobilising any call for boycott, obstruction, disruption or organised non-participation in the convocation or any programme connected with the CJI.

The BCI also sought details of any student body, Student Bar Council, Students' Union or other recognised student organisation involved in initiating, approving, coordinating or circulating the campaign. It asked the university to specify the role of any faculty member, research scholar, alumnus or outsider who may have participated in initiating, drafting, coordinating, advising or facilitating the campaign.

NALSAR has also been asked to provide copies of relevant resolutions, minutes, agendas and other official records of meetings held in connection with the matter, besides clarifying whether permission was sought or granted for any protest or organised activity and whether any university rules concerning student conduct or official functions were invoked.

In its earlier communication, the BCI had clarified that merely signing or supporting a representation would not automatically result in disqualification from enrolment. It had drawn a distinction between individuals who only expressed support for a representation and those who allegedly organised or coordinated a campaign or sought to mobilise an actual boycott, obstruction or disruption.

The Council had also said that any final adverse decision would be taken in accordance with the Advocates Act, 1961, applicable rules and the principles of natural justice.

The BCI had emphasised that legal education allows critical reasoning, debate and analysis of judicial decisions, while noting that reasoned criticism must be distinguished from conduct which, if established after due examination, could involve intimidation, obstruction, organised disruption or disregard of institutional responsibilities associated with the legal profession.

The Council had sought the factual report from NALSAR at the earliest and said the matter would be considered on August 19, 2026, after receipt of the Vice-Chancellor's report.

(With Inputs From ANI)