By Dr. Gyan Pathak
Chief Justice of India Suray Kant’s rebuke to the Bar Council of India and supporting NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, Students’ right to protest against him has a great legal, political and ethical significance. It is yet not clear how much, but NALSAR controversy has already transcended beyond itself. After CJI’s rebuke, Cockroach Janata Party, which derives its name from the word “cockroach” used pejoratively by the CJI, has now demanded even resignation of Bar Council of India Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra.
If political angle is added, because Mishra holds dual position – BCI Chairman and BJP nominated Rajya Sabha member, the NALSAR episode clearly exposes several legal, political and social layers that need to be taken seriously. It is no longer an issue of Students vs NALSAR University of Law, or Students vs CJI, or BCI vs Students, or BCI vs CJI, or Students vs BJP or RSS, but has become a multidimensional issue.
For brief reference, the controversy began when NALSAR students objected to CJI Surya Kant being invited as chief guest at their 2026 convocation. Reports say roughly 450 students had earlier written to the university seeking reconsideration of the invitation. Bar Council of India (BCI) then went much further than merely commenting on the dispute. Its chairman, Manan Kumar Mishra, directed State Bar Councils not to enrol NALSAR’s 2026 graduates as advocates. The order was subsequently withdrawn, amid strong criticism. The matter reached Supreme Court of India, and the CJI commented that students have a right to protest, even if what they say is wrong, and BCI has no business to intervene. After his comment Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) co-convenor Saurav Das demanded the resignation of BCI chairman Maana Kumar Mishra and posted on X, “Moral responsibility commands that Manan Kumar Mishra resigns. Cockroaches both inside and outside courts should ensure this happens.” CJP founder Abhijit Dipke posted “What if all legal cockroaches come together?”
CJI’s comments are significant for several reasons. It is a powerful defence of dissent precisely because the dissent was against himself. Students were objecting to CJI’s participation in their convocation. It amounts to saying that the legitimacy of peaceful dissent does not depend upon whether the person being criticized is powerful, or even the head of the judiciary.
CJI has made a great demarcation of the institutional boundaries also, which is institutionally consequential. BCI has an important statutory role in regulating legal profession and legal education in India, including standards for legal education and enrolment-related matters. Let it be noted that students were expressing an opinion concerning merely a university function. Nevertheless, BCI intervened out of their jurisdiction and ordered that students of the batch should not be enrolled as an advocate. It was a punishment to all the students for some students’ opinion.
In this backdrop, CJI’s question was important – “Who are they to raise an issue?”— and goes to the heart of the matter: does the BCI possess regulatory authority that extends into disciplining law students for political or institutional expression? The Supreme Court’s intervention suggests that this question will not be allowed to pass merely as an administrative matter.
CJI’s emphasis was on students lawfully and peacefully raising their voice. It is an important protection. It clearly establishes a distinction between protest and misconduct. A protest is not protected under the Constitution of India if it is in not “lawful and peaceful”. That distinction is crucial. The BCI therefore cannot simply label dissent as “indiscipline” and then invoke its professional-regulatory powers.
It is also worth noting that rather than treating criticism of the CJI as an institutional affront, he treated it as a matter of dialogue between a constitutional office-holder and students. CJI’s response was effectively, “They are protesting against me. Let them”. BCI has no business to intervene.
What happened in the Supreme Court makes the episode considerably more important than an ordinary dispute between a university and its students. CJI’s comment has potentially become a statement about constitutional culture within the legal profession itself: future lawyers should not be taught that disagreement with powerful legal institutions can cost them their careers.
There is another layer here: the episode potentially exposes a tension between the BCI chairman, the Modi-era legal and institutional ecosystem, the Supreme Court, and the growing political activism of law students. That is where it becomes considerably more consequential than a simple student-rights dispute.
Since Manan Mishra is also a BJP-nominated MP, it exposes a more complicated struggle over who gets to define acceptable dissent inside India’s legal establishment. Mishra’s intervention in the NALSAR matter is therefore politically sensitive. It is not known if the BJP-led Centre under PM Narendra Modi had instructed Mishra to act against the students. But one can’t regard his action against law students as BCI chairman politically neutral.
It is known that students’ protest has a political origin. Students were objecting to CJI’s handling of allegation concerning police brutality on student protesters at Jantar Mantar in Delhi, when they marched to parliament on July 20, demanding resignation of Union Minister of Education on exam irregularities and paper leaks. That protest was led by CJP. On July 22, the Supreme Court declined to initiate suo motu proceedings over alleged police excesses, and when shown that video evidence existed, CJI Surya Kant reportedly declined to examine it. That is why the students considered inviting the CJI to their convocation inconsistent with values they had been taught at the law school. In this way NALSAR students protest can be understood as constitutional politics.
BCI’s intervention was politically revealing. It tried to regulate or control political expression of law students, and also their future entry in legal profession as an advocate. Had BCI not withdrawn its earlier order after criticism from all sections of people, it would have led to greater political consequences. Here, CJI’s comment is also politically significant and interesting, because he himself defended student’s right to protest, though the protest was targeted against him. This is potentially valuable for the judiciary’s institutional legitimacy. (IPA Service)
