Hyderabad: The Student Bar Council of NALSAR University of Law on Saturday, August 15, condemned the BCI over its withdrawn order barring state bar councils from enrolling the university’s 2026 graduates as advocates.
It sought an apology from BCI Chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra for what it termed objectionable comments against students and faculty.
The Student Bar Council, an elected student body at NALSAR, objected to Mishra’s remarks that “a handful of teachers and outsiders were instrumental in instigating innocent students”.
The Bar Council of India on Thursday directed all state bar councils not to enrol any 2026 graduate of NALSAR University of Law as an advocate until further orders, but withdrew the directive within hours following widespread criticism.
“We acknowledge the rescission of the letters and the extinguishment of the cause of action. However, even then, it is important for us to record our condemnation of this event at four levels—statutory, constitutional, first principles, and in light of the wider social realities of repression and unfreedom,” the Student Bar Council said.
The council said the BCI’s direction to state bar councils to restrict the enrolment of students from the 2026 batch did not fall within its statutory functions.
On the BCI’s direction to the NALSAR Vice-Chancellor to prepare an inquiry report, the council said the letter sought details that could identify virtually everyone involved in the alleged campaign, including its initiators, drafters, office-bearers of student bodies, faculty members, research scholars, alumni and external participants.
“Asking for such details is an intrusive violation of privacy, considering that it involves revealing the identities of students, who may face potential long-term consequences,” it said.
Terming the language of the BCI letters “highly objectionable”, the council said they referred to “groupism” and “dirty politics” within the university and alleged that faculty members were “misleading, misguiding and instigating students.”
“These allegations are unprofessional, unfounded, and without any substance. Making such claims against members of the University family for mere peaceful expression of legitimate dissent is uncalled for and reeks of malice,” it alleged.
Referring to the BCI’s modified letter stating that “a handful of teachers and outsiders were instrumental in instigating the innocent students”, the council said the attempt to identify the faculty member, alumnus, research scholar or “outsider” who supposedly orchestrated the campaign denied students ownership of their political views.
“It reflects the classic ‘anti-national’ narrative, in which dissent is not engaged with on its merits but is explained away as the work of external actors manipulating impressionable students in a patronising fashion,” it said.
The council alleged that the BCI Chairperson’s actions were unbecoming of his office and contrary to the constitutional principles he was expected to uphold. It said Mishra’s communication on X did not withdraw the allegations made against the students and faculty.
“We demand an apology from the BCI Chairperson for making such objectionable comments,” it said.
The statement said no institution, including the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of India, was beyond legitimate scrutiny in a constitutional democracy, and that judicial accountability was not the antithesis of judicial independence but one of its essential safeguards.
Universities, it said, existed to nurture independent thought, critical inquiry and the “courage to question authority”.
Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the council said the right to dissent legitimately and lawfully was an integral part of the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a), and alleged that the BCI Chairperson appeared to have forgotten this.
The council pointed out that Mishra was not only the head of a statutory regulator but also a BJP Rajya Sabha member. Against this backdrop, it alleged, the attempt to identify faculty members, alumni, research scholars and “outsiders” behind the student dissent appeared to be a political exercise.
The students said NALSAR was faced with a choice between acquiescing to the “shrinking of democratic space” and affirming that universities were not extensions of the state.
The statement came a day after Chief Justice of India Surya Kant sharply questioned the BCI over its action against NALSAR’s 2026 graduates following objections from a section of students to the proposal to invite him as the chief guest at the university’s convocation.
A section of NALSAR students had, in July, written to the Vice-Chancellor, Registrar and professors, opposing the proposal to invite the CJI as the chief guest for the university’s convocation, the date of which has not yet been announced.
This post was last modified on August 15, 2026 2:53 pm