NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, had proposed inviting Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as chief guest at its 2026 convocation. A section of the graduating batch objected. Their objection was reportedly tied to remarks the CJI had made weeks earlier while dismissing a plea concerning police handling of a protest march by the Cockroach Janta Party toward Parliament at Delhi's Jantar Mantar, remarks in which the bench declined to view video evidence submitted in support of the plea. Reports put the number of NALSAR students who signed on to the campaign at roughly 450 out of the university's 1,400-odd students.

Circular one: an entire batch frozen out

On the evening of 13 August, BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra issued a letter (No. BCI:D:5449/2026) to the NALSAR Vice-Chancellor and the secretaries of every State Bar Council. It directed that no 2026 NALSAR graduate be enrolled as an advocate "until further orders."

The letter invoked the Bar Council's statutory mandate under the Advocates Act, 1961 particularly Section 7(1)(b) (standards of professional conduct), Section 7(1)(g) (supervision of State Bar Councils), Sections 7(1)(h) and (i) (standards of legal education), and Section 49 (rule-making power) and cited the Supreme Court's decision in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 45, on the professional obligations attaching to advocates' calls for strikes and boycotts. It alleged, citing unnamed "reliable sources," that groupism among sections of NALSAR's academic staff had contributed to "misleading, instigating and misguiding" the students, and asserted that a law student with no regard for the CJI's office was "not expected to be a responsible or sensible Advocate."

The Vice-Chancellor was directed to furnish an authenticated report within three days identifying everyone principally involved in drafting, circulating or coordinating the campaign including any Student Bar Council or Students' Union office-bearers, and any faculty member, research scholar, alumnus or outsider who took part. The letter clarified that no individual was, at that stage, being treated as disqualified from enrolment under Section 24A, but reasoned that allowing enrolment to go through while an inquiry was pending could create a fait accompli. A final decision was slated for 19 August, after the Vice-Chancellor's report came in.

Circular two: reversed within hours

Later the same evening, the Council issued a second letter (No. BCI:D:5450/2026), stating that after "thorough discussion," its members had unanimously concluded that the "vast majority" of the 2026 batch were innocent and had no inclination to take part in the campaign. It modified the enrolment freeze accordingly:

"No student shall be made to suffer without any fault on his part."

All 2026 NALSAR graduates were, from that point, free to seek enrolment with the State Bar Council of their choice. The Council said it would still await the Vice-Chancellor's report on the "handful of teachers and outsiders" it believed were behind the campaign before deciding on any further action.

The file is closed altogether

Shortly after midnight at 12:27 am on 14 August, Chairman Mishra posted a further statement announcing that the Council had decided to close the matter in its entirety. Having considered representations from senior advocates, Bar members, law students and the wider public, the BCI said it was satisfied the 2026 batch "had no role in any disturbance or movement," and that there would be no further inquiry.


Later that Friday morning, Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar mentioned the matter before a bench headed by CJI Surya Kant himself, sitting with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, arguing that "BCI has no business of what's going on in a university." The CJI's response was unambiguous:

"Absolutely uncalled for. It's a dialogue between students and me."

He went on to say that students have a right to protest even if their position is mistaken, recalled his own student-activism days, and directed that no action be taken against NALSAR's students or faculty over the episode adding, in a lighter aside, that the graduating batch should go ahead and enrol, and that the Supreme Court would empanel them for its legal aid programmes.

Three reversals from the country's apex bar regulator inside eighteen hours, capped by the sitting Chief Justice publicly telling that regulator it had overstepped, this is a rare, on-the-record instance of the judiciary checking the BCI's disciplinary reach over law students, as distinct from its more settled jurisdiction over enrolled advocates. It also lands at a pointed moment: the BCI's own Draft Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2026, currently out for public consultation, proposes expanding the Council's regulatory footprint over law firms and foreign lawyers. Expect this episode to be cited both ways in that debate: by those who think a body capable of moving this fast and this loosely shouldn't get more power, and by those who'll say the system corrected itself within a day.