Chief Justice of India (CJI), Surya Kant Mishra on Friday vehemently objected to the recent directive issued by the Bar Council of India (BCI), which, on Thursday landed on the decision to temporarily block the enrollment of all 2026 graduates of the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR) in Hyderabad. The CJI questioned the legal body’s authority to intervene in a dispute involving students and him.

The CJI made the remarks after the BCI issued orders to all the State Bar Councils not to enroll any graduate from NALSAR’s 2026 batch pending an inquiry into a student campaign opposing the participation of CJI Kant in the university’s convocation ceremony.

“Who are they to interfere?” CJI Kant

Terming the BCI’s intervention ‘absolutely uncalled for,’ CJI Kant said the matter should remain between him and the students.

He said, “I myself was a student who was actively engaged in protests. It’s a dialogue between me and students; who are they (BCI) to interfere with?” He made the remarks after a plea challenging the BCI circular was mentioned before the Supreme Court (SC) for urgent listing.

The apex court has sought the BCI’s response to the circulars and issued directives that no punitive action be taken against NALSAR’s students or faculty members.

Appearing on behalf of the BCI, the counsel informed the Bench that the controversial circular had been withdrawn hours after the rollout.

Ban withdrawn hours after rollout

Initially, the BCI had sought a factual report from the university’s Vice-chancellor identifying those who allegedly initiated, organised or mobilised the campaign against the Chief Justice’s participation in the convocation.

Pending the inquiry, the Council had directed the State Bar Councils not to enroll any student graduating from NALSAR in 2026. However, the sweeping directive has now been withdrawn.

Subsequently, the BCI said that on the basis of the information available to it, the vast majority of NALSAR’s 2026 graduates were innocent and were not inclined to participate in any move aimed at disrespecting the Chief Justice.

Several sections of the legal fraternity were quick to respond to the decision, and criticised it, while the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President and senior advocate Vikas Singh called the move ‘arbitrary, illegal and disproportionate.’

SCBA Chief Flags ‘Intimidation’

In a letter written to BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra on August 13, Thursday, Singh strongly objected to the blanket restriction, arguing that it could amount to an attempt to intimidate law students for exercising their fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.

Singh maintained that universities must remain spaces for free thought, debate and disagreement, particularly in a constitutional democracy. He further argued that students should not face the threat of being denied entry into the legal profession simply because they had expressed disagreement with a constitutional authority.

The senior lawyer opined, “Students cannot be threatened with denial of their right to enter the legal profession merely because they have expressed disagreement with a constitutional authority”.