'Constitutional Fidelity Requires Silence?': NALSAR Student Bar Council Condemns BCI Action Over CJI Convocation Row

Hyderabad: The Student Bar Council (SBC) of NALSAR University of Law has strongly condemned the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) action against the university’s 2026 law graduates, arguing that the move raised serious questions about statutory powers, constitutional freedoms and the right to dissent.

In a statement issued after midnight on August 14 and reported on August 15, the SBC welcomed the withdrawal of the BCI’s enrolment restriction but said the episode warranted condemnation on “statutory, constitutional, first principles” and broader democratic grounds.

BCI Enrolment Order Triggered Student Outrage

The controversy began after a student campaign opposing the reported invitation of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as the chief guest for NALSAR’s 2026 convocation.

On August 13, BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra issued a circular directing State Bar Councils not to enrol NALSAR’s 2026 law graduates as advocates “till further orders”.

A subsequent communication issued hours later largely rescinded the restriction while initially retaining a demand for an inquiry. The proceedings were later closed completely.

‘Actions Exceeded BCI’s Statutory Powers’

The SBC argued that the BCI’s intervention went beyond the powers granted to it under the Advocates Act, 1961.

According to the students, Section 7 primarily empowers the BCI to regulate professional standards and promote legal education, while Section 24A specifies the circumstances in which a person can be disqualified from enrolment.

The statement argued that Section 49, being a rule-making provision, cannot be used to create new conditions or disabilities for enrolment that have not been prescribed by Parliament.

The SBC also rejected the BCI’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India, calling its application to the NALSAR episode “fundamentally misplaced”.

‘Constitutional Fidelity Requires Silence?’

At the heart of the SBC’s response was its defence of dissent and criticism of public institutions.

The students rejected the suggestion that constitutional loyalty requires silence, asserting that the rights to dissent, protest, criticise institutions and demand accountability are fundamental to a democratic society.

The SBC maintained that no institution, including the Supreme Court or the Chief Justice of India, should be beyond legitimate scrutiny.

It also argued that judicial accountability strengthens rather than weakens judicial independence, while universities must remain spaces where students can engage in critical inquiry and question those in positions of authority.

SBC Raises Privacy Concerns Over BCI Inquiry

The Student Bar Council also objected to the scope of the inquiry initially sought by the BCI.

It questioned the demand for details identifying alleged initiators, organisers, mobilisers, social-media administrators, student office-bearers, faculty members, research scholars, alumni and external participants.

The SBC described the demand as an “intrusive violation of privacy”, warning that such information could have long-term consequences for students and others associated with the campaign.

‘Highly Objectionable’ Language

The statement also criticised the language used in the BCI communications, particularly references to “groupism” and “nasty/dirty politics” and allegations that faculty members were “misleading, misguiding and instigating” students.

The SBC termed these remarks “highly objectionable,” “unprofessional” and “unfounded”, arguing that they lacked substantive basis.

NALSAR Students Seek Formal Apology

While acknowledging that the BCI eventually withdrew its communications and closed the proceedings, the SBC said some allegations remained unaddressed.

It specifically objected to the claim that “a handful of teachers and outsiders” had instigated the students and demanded a formal apology from BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra.

The SBC described the conduct as “unbecoming of his post” and said the withdrawal of the orders did not erase the concerns raised by the episode.

Independence Day Reference

The statement also placed the controversy against the backdrop of Independence Day, invoking the Constitution’s promise of liberty, democratic participation and the freedom to dissent.

The SBC thanked the NALSAR administration, including the Vice-Chancellor, along with alumni and members of the wider legal and social fraternity for expressing solidarity during the dispute.

The episode has since triggered a broader debate over the boundaries of regulatory authority, student dissent and institutional accountability within legal education.

Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, who has served as President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) for four terms, has penned a note thanking members of the Bar for their trust and support during his tenure. Reflecting on his time in office, Singh highlighted several initiatives aimed at improving the welfare of lawyers and strengthening the institution.

In his note, he further said that as the baton is passed to the next leadership, he hopes the association will continue to be led by someone who understands the fraternity and remains independent of political, financial and external pressures while working solely in the interests of its members.