Guwahati: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Friday criticised the Bar Council of India (BCI) for directing state Bar councils to withhold enrolment of the 2026 batch of NALSAR University of Law students following their protest linked to his invitation to the university’s annual convocation.
Hearing a plea challenging the BCI’s now-withdrawn directive, the CJI said students were entitled to express their views and questioned why the professional body had intervened in the matter.
Surya Kant said the students had communicated their concerns to him directly and described the matter as an interaction between the students and himself. He observed that the BCI’s intervention was unnecessary and had no connection with the issue.
The CJI also said that even if students made an inappropriate statement, it would not take away their right to protest. He further encouraged the students to complete their enrolment and join the legal profession, saying they could even be considered for legal aid work in the Supreme Court.
The remarks came during mentioning hours after Senior Advocate K Parameshwar informed the bench that a petition had been filed against the BCI directive.
The BCI had issued the controversial circular on Thursday, asking state Bar councils not to enrol students belonging to NALSAR’s 2026 graduating batch. The move came amid a controversy surrounding student protests over the CJI’s invitation to the university’s convocation.
The directive was withdrawn later the same day. The BCI subsequently said it had closed the matter after determining that the students were not involved in any disturbance or movement related to the controversy.
During Friday’s hearing, the Supreme Court recorded that the circular had been withdrawn and directed that no punitive action be taken against NALSAR students or faculty in connection with the incidents referred to in the BCI’s communications.
The bench, comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, issued notice to the BCI and allowed it two weeks to file its counter affidavit.
Appearing for the petitioners, Parameshwar argued that withdrawal of the circular did not eliminate the issue raised by the petition. He also questioned the manner in which BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra had handled the matter.
Parameshwar maintained that the BCI had no authority to intervene in internal matters concerning a university.
The CJI, recalling his own student days, said he had participated actively in student activities and reiterated that students have the right to protest, even when their views or statements may be considered wrong.
He said the NALSAR students had raised their concerns peacefully and should be permitted to voice their opinions.
Justice Bagchi also questioned the circumstances surrounding the BCI’s decision, asking whether the council had been formally convened to pass such a resolution.
The Supreme Court’s observations came after the BCI withdrew its directive, but the bench agreed to examine the broader questions arising from the episode.