NALSAR Enrolment Row: Supreme Court Rebukes BCI Over 2026 Graduates’ Freeze

Published: Friday, August 14, 2026, 13:47 [IST]

The Supreme Court on Friday, August 14, 2026, strongly criticised the Bar Council of India (BCI) over its now-withdrawn decision to direct State Bar Councils to stop the enrolment of NALSAR University of Law's 2026 graduates as advocates.

BCI Withdraws NALSAR Enrolment Freeze Circular — PTI Images

The court questioned the authority of the BCI to interfere with the professional futures of students over their protest against the proposed participation of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant at the university's convocation.

During the proceedings, CJI Surya Kant said students have the right to express disagreement and protest, questioning why the BCI should intervene in a matter involving students and the university.

"Who is the BCI to come between the students and me?" the Chief Justice said, stressing that the BCI had no business taking steps that could adversely affect the future of NALSAR students.

BCI Circular on NALSAR Graduates

The controversy began after NALSAR students protested against the proposed invitation of CJI Surya Kant to their convocation ceremony. The students' objections reportedly followed comments attributed to the Chief Justice, including his reported use of the term "cockroach" while referring to youths.

Following the student campaign, the BCI issued communications on August 13, directing State Bar Councils not to enrol graduates from NALSAR's 2026 batch until further orders. The BCI cited the need for an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the students' campaign.

The directive was subsequently withdrawn within hours, with the BCI clarifying that all NALSAR 2026 graduates would be permitted to enrol.

Supreme Court Orders Protection for NALSAR Students

During Friday's hearing, the Supreme Court directed that no coercive action be taken against NALSAR students or university administrators based on the incidents referred to in the BCI's August 13 communications.

The court also sought an explanation from the BCI regarding the circumstances in which the circulars were issued. The BCI has been asked to submit an affidavit explaining the decision.

Senior advocate K. Parameshwar, appearing in the matter, argued that the BCI does not possess disciplinary jurisdiction over students or matters occurring within a university campus. He submitted that preventing graduates from enrolling as advocates could seriously affect their careers and livelihoods.

Court Questions BCI's Authority

The Supreme Court also sought clarity on whether the controversial circulars were issued following a formal resolution of the BCI as a collective body or whether they represented an initiative of BCI Chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra.

The court directed the BCI to provide a clear explanation on this issue. Advocate Radhika Gautam, representing the BCI, agreed to obtain instructions and file the required affidavit before the court.

The proceedings followed an oral mentioning by K. Parameshwar seeking an early hearing of the petition challenging the BCI's actions.

Case Listed for Hearing Next Week

The Supreme Court has issued notice on the petition and scheduled the matter for further hearing next week. Until then, the court's direction against coercive action provides protection to the NALSAR students and administrators named in connection with the controversy.

The dispute has raised broader questions about students' freedom to protest, the regulatory powers of the BCI, and the potential impact of institutional disputes on the professional careers of law graduates.

The court's intervention also ensures that the controversy over the NALSAR convocation does not immediately translate into a barrier for the 2026 graduating batch seeking enrolment as advocates.