The clarification came after days of controversy over the university’s plan to invite the Chief Justice to its 2026 convocation. More than 450 students had signed a representation asking the Hyderabad-based university to reconsider the proposed choice of chief guest. Surya Kant has maintained that because he did not accept the invitation, there was no question of him attending the ceremony.
The dispute escalated sharply when the Bar Council of India ordered State Bar Councils on August 13 not to enrol any student graduating from NALSAR in 2026 as an advocate until further directions. The sweeping order potentially affected an entire graduating batch, including students who had played no role in the protest.
The council withdrew the restriction within hours following criticism from lawyers, students and members of the legal community. It subsequently closed the proceedings after concluding that the graduating batch had no role in any disturbance or movement.
The Supreme Court also intervened after the Bar Council action was challenged. A bench headed by Surya Kant strongly criticised the regulatory body’s intervention and made clear that students were entitled to express disagreement peacefully. The court directed that no punitive action should be taken against NALSAR students or faculty in connection with the episode.
Surya Kant described the disagreement as essentially a matter between himself and the students and questioned why the Bar Council had intervened. He said his own student years had included participation in student activities and observed that even where young people expressed views considered wrong by others, their right to protest remained intact.
The court also sought a response in the proceedings challenging the Bar Council action, even though the disputed directive had already been withdrawn. Its intervention effectively insulated students and faculty members from further disciplinary consequences arising from the controversy.
The student campaign began before the convocation date or chief guest had been formally announced. Students from the graduating batch wrote to the Vice-Chancellor, Registrar and faculty members, objecting to the proposal to invite Surya Kant and asking the administration to reconsider.
Their objections centred partly on proceedings linked to alleged police action against demonstrators during the July 20 “Chalo Sansad” protest at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi. The students criticised the handling of an attempt to secure urgent Supreme Court consideration of allegations concerning police conduct during the demonstration.
Students later stressed that they did not intend to boycott the convocation or prevent the ceremony from taking place. Their position was that they wanted the university to reconsider the proposed chief guest while preserving their ability to participate in the graduation ceremony.
The Bar Council’s initial response transformed what had been an internal university dispute into a wider debate about professional regulation, academic autonomy and freedom of expression. Its directive instructed State Bar Councils to defer enrolment of the entire 2026 NALSAR batch while seeking information from the university about those involved in organising or mobilising the campaign.
BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra later changed course, stating that graduates should not suffer for conduct for which they were not responsible. The council ultimately abandoned further proceedings against the batch.
The controversy has spread beyond NALSAR. Students and alumni of the National Law School of India University in Bengaluru have also voiced objections to Surya Kant and Mishra attending their institution’s convocation. A statement dated August 15 carried the support of 165 graduating students, 409 current students and 128 alumni, who criticised the Bar Council’s handling of the NALSAR episode.
(IPA Service)
