Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Friday backed the right of students at Hyderabad’s National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR) to peacefully protest, after the Bar Council of India (BCI) moved to stop the 2026 graduating batch from being enrolled as advocates. Hearing the matter in the Supreme Court, CJI Surya Kant said students with a genuine cause should be allowed to raise their voices and stressed that the dispute was between the students and him, not the BCI.
He described the regulator’s intervention as “absolutely unnecessary” and “totally uncalled for”. The court directed that neither the BCI nor any state bar council should take punitive action against students or faculty of any law university. The BCI’s counsel informed the court that the controversial order had been withdrawn, although Senior Advocate K Parmeswar argued that the cause of action still survives. Justice J Bagchi also questioned whether the BCI had been properly convened before passing the resolution.
‘Students With Genuine Cause Must Be Allowed To Protest’
The Supreme Court’s intervention came after the BCI directed state bar councils to halt the enrolment of NALSAR’s 2026 graduates amid a controversy over students’ opposition to CJI Surya Kant being invited as chief guest for the university’s convocation. The students had raised concerns about the CJI’s conduct and remarks during proceedings related to alleged police excesses against protesters in Delhi. Around 450 students had earlier written to university authorities asking them to reconsider the invitation.
During Friday’s hearing, CJI Surya Kant made it clear that peaceful dissent should not invite institutional retaliation. He said the students’ concerns were a matter between them and him, questioning why the BCI had intervened in an issue that did not concern the professional regulator. The court’s observations placed the focus on the students’ freedom to express disagreement while making clear that protests must remain peaceful.
The BCI, represented through its counsel, told the court that the order preventing enrolment had already been withdrawn. However, Senior Advocate K Parmeswar submitted that merely withdrawing the order did not necessarily resolve the legal dispute. Justice J Bagchi also raised a procedural question about whether the BCI meeting at which the resolution was passed had been properly convened.
From A Convocation Dispute
The controversy began after a section of NALSAR’s graduating students objected to CJI Surya Kant being invited to their convocation. The students reportedly cited concerns over his remarks during a Supreme Court hearing on alleged police action against protesters, arguing that such comments were inconsistent with the constitutional values they believed their university represented.
The disagreement escalated when the BCI directed state bar councils not to enrol members of the entire 2026 graduating batch of NALSAR as advocates until further orders. The regulator also sought information about those allegedly involved in organising or mobilising the campaign against the CJI’s participation in the convocation. The blanket nature of the decision drew criticism because it potentially affected students beyond those who had organised or participated in the protest.
The BCI subsequently reversed course, with its chairman Manan Kumar Mishra indicating that students could proceed with enrolment and later stating that the proceedings had been closed. The Supreme Court’s latest intervention has now added another layer to the dispute, with the bench making it clear that students and faculty should not face punitive action from the BCI or state bar councils over the episode.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Students of a law university are not merely preparing for a profession; they are learning how to question authority, engage with disagreement and defend constitutional values. Peaceful protest and respectful dissent should not be treated as threats simply because they challenge a powerful institution or public figure. At the same time, dissent carries a responsibility to remain non-violent, reasoned and respectful. The Supreme Court’s intervention is a reminder that disagreements are best resolved through dialogue rather than collective punishment or institutional pressure.
When young people are encouraged to speak up peacefully, society benefits from a culture where disagreement can coexist with dignity. Do you think educational and professional institutions should do more to protect peaceful student dissent while ensuring that dialogue remains respectful?
Also Read: Himachal Pradesh Adds 60 Paise/Litre Widow & Orphan Cess On Petrol, Diesel: What It Means
SC disapproves BCI’s letter threatening debarment of NALSAR students, CJI says, “it was uncalled for. Everyone has a right to protest peacefully. It was a dialogue between me and the students. Who is BCI to intervene ?”
— Arvind Gunasekar (@arvindgunasekar) August 14, 2026
