NEW DELHI: Lawyers gathered outside the Bar Council of India (BCI) office in New Delhi on Thursday, August 20, demanding the resignation of BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra following the council’s controversial, now-withdrawn order affecting the enrolment of NALSAR University of Law’s 2026 graduating batch.
The protest, organised by the All India Young Advocates Association and supported by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), saw demonstrators raise concerns over the BCI’s decision-making, lawyer welfare and Mishra’s long tenure. The controversy began after some NALSAR students opposed the invitation of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to their convocation.
On August 13, the BCI directed State Bar Councils not to enrol the entire graduating batch and sought details of students involved in the campaign. Following criticism, the order was withdrawn and proceedings against the batch were eventually closed. Mishra later apologised to law students, saying he “sincerely regret[ted] and apologise[d]” if his words or communication had hurt them.
The CJI himself criticised the BCI’s intervention as “absolutely unnecessary” and said students have the right to peacefully protest. The Bombay Bar Association has separately called Mishra’s apology belated and demanded his resignation.
Lawyers Demand Accountability
The protest outside the BCI office has now shifted the controversy from NALSAR’s campus to the wider legal profession. Lawyers said their demands go beyond the withdrawn enrolment order and include greater accountability within the BCI, better welfare measures for advocates, stipends for young lawyers, chambers, regulation of law colleges and reforms concerning the Advocates Act.
Advocate Raman Sharma said the demonstration was primarily a movement by lawyers, despite support from the CJP, and questioned Mishra’s long tenure at the helm of the BCI. The council’s own records and recent reporting indicate that Mishra has led the institution for roughly 14 years, having first become chairman in 2012 and returning to the post later that year after a subsequent term.
Advocate Umesh Kumar, who participated in Thursday’s demonstration, also alleged that the BCI had not done enough for the welfare of lawyers and law students. He raised concerns about attacks on lawyers, stipends, chambers and the quality of legal education, while also alleging that the BCI had sometimes prioritised political issues over professional concerns.
These are allegations made by protesters and have not been independently established. The BCI, meanwhile, has defended its regulatory role in the NALSAR episode, initially arguing that it could not remain a “mute spectator” to what it described as a serious situation involving legal education. The council had cited provisions of the Advocates Act while explaining its original intervention before later reversing course.
From NALSAR Row To Resignation
The dispute began when a section of NALSAR’s 2026 graduating students asked the university to reconsider its decision to invite CJI Surya Kant as chief guest at the convocation. Their objection was linked to the CJI’s handling of a petition concerning alleged police excesses during the July 20 protest in Delhi.
The BCI’s August 13 communication then directed State Bar Councils not to enrol any student from the graduating batch until further orders and asked NALSAR to provide information about those involved in the campaign.
The decision triggered criticism from students, lawyers and political voices, with critics questioning the proportionality of penalising an entire graduating batch over a campaign involving only some students.
The BCI subsequently allowed all 2026 graduates to seek enrolment with the State Bar Council of their choice and later announced that proceedings against the batch had been closed altogether after considering representations from advocates, students and others.
The Supreme Court also questioned the BCI’s intervention. CJI Surya Kant said students have a right to peacefully raise their voices and described the BCI’s action as “absolutely uncalled for”. The court was also asked to examine whether the BCI chairman had the authority to issue the directions without a properly convened council decision. Two NALSAR alumni subsequently approached the Supreme Court seeking an inquiry into how the directions were issued.
The controversy did not end with the withdrawal. On August 15, Mishra apologised to law students, saying that an expression of regret was not a matter of “prestige or ego” and that students’ concerns mattered. NALSAR’s Student Bar Council, however, sought an apology over what it considered objectionable remarks about students and faculty. Students and alumni at NLSIU Bengaluru also criticised the BCI’s earlier action.
The Bombay Bar Association has since intensified the pressure. In a resolution discussed on August 17 and 18, it described the BCI chairman’s August 13 action as an “abuse of power” and said his August 15 apology was belated. The association argued that the apology could not be treated as an expression of “true remorse” while Mishra continued as chairman and said he should have resigned.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The NALSAR episode raises an important question about how institutions entrusted with regulating the legal profession should respond when students disagree with powerful constitutional or judicial figures. The right to dissent must coexist with responsibility, but disagreement particularly when expressed peacefully should not become a reason to threaten a young person’s professional future.
At the same time, institutions such as the BCI deserve scrutiny through facts, due process and transparent mechanisms rather than personal attacks or political confrontation. If lawyers themselves are demanding greater accountability from their regulator, the answer should be constructive dialogue, independent review and institutional reform.
Also read: Uttarakhand Women To Get Free Bus Travel On August 28-29 For Raksha Bandhan
