An assault on Bar and NALSAR students

The NALSAR controversy is not a simple issue of convening a convocation. It is also not an issue of one institution. It has already taken a remarkable constitutional turn.

It started with an extraordinary threat ‘to prevent the entire graduating batch of 2026 from entering the legal profession’ and has ended, at least for the present, with an apology from Manan Kumar Mishra, Chairman of the Bar Council of India (BCI) and emphatic protection from the Supreme Court.

The BCI and the judiciary should understand the origin and growth of the system of National Law Schools all over India. The visionary legal educator, the late Prof N R Madhava Menon, established the blueprint for modern legal education in India. While the first institute was established in Bengaluru, the second came up in Hyderabad in 1998. Today, nearly 25 National Law Universities (NLUs) stand as monuments to his vision. They are producing thousands of skilled lawyers, scholars, and public servants. Is a regulatory authority now willing to undermine these very institutions?

To freeze the legal futures of 450 NALSAR graduates is a grave threat to the legal ecosystem and this prestigious Institution. In this entire episode, the students won the legal battle over the BCI’s unreasonable six-age orders that immediately barred the BCI from retreating. A couple of advocates, Mihira Sood and K Parameshwar, alumni of NALSAR, stood steadfast, and within a day, the CJI came to the rescue of juniors National Law and Research Academy, University of Law. Menon’s dream of protecting the law students from BCI-threatened action was realised.

Radhika Gautam, counsel for BCI, accepted the notice and stated that the offending circulars have since been withdrawn. The Bench held, ‘meanwhile, no punitive action shall be taken against the students or Faculty of NALSAR University of Law at the instance of the Bar Council of India or any State Bar Council in respect of the incidents mentioned in the subject letters.” I as a founding faculty member and the present Vice-Chancellor of NALSAR University of Law, Prof Krishnadeva Rao thank the Supreme Court for protecting the academic pursuits of all these members, lawyers, students and faculty.

But question linger.

‘What should be the real priorities of the Bar Council of India? Should its enormous statutory authority be used to threaten genuine law graduates for peaceful dissent, or should it be directed towards protecting the integrity of the legal profession from fake degrees, unauthorised practice and other serious threats to the justice delivery system?

After widespread criticism and the intervention of the Supreme Court, BCI Chairman publicly expressed regret and apologised to NALSAR students who may have been hurt by his communications and remarks. He also accepted, significantly, that students are entitled to express their views and that peaceful protest is part of democratic engagement. Such an apology is certainly preferable to the stubbornness of BCI. In a public office, the willingness to admit error is an important democratic virtue. But the seriousness of the original action cannot be forgotten merely because it was withdrawn.

For several hours, hundreds of young law graduates faced the possibility that their professional future could be blocked midway through the course. Their only alleged offence was participation in, or association with, a peaceful campaign questioning the decision to invite the Chief Justice of India as the chief guest for their convocation.

CJI protects future lawyers:

The most significant aspect of the episode was the response of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant himself. The protest was, after all, directed against his proposed participation in the NALSAR convocation. Yet the CJI did not seek punishment of the students. Instead, he made it clear before the Supreme Court that students had the right to protest peacefully and that the BCI’s intervention was unnecessary and uncalled for.

The Supreme Court then restrained the BCI and the State Bar Councils from taking punitive action against NALSAR students or faculty in connection with the controversy. The CJI’s intervention therefore restored an elementary principle: dissent is not professional misconduct. Peaceful disagreement is not a disqualification for entering the Bar. Only recently, concerns were raised before the Supreme Court regarding persons allegedly entering or attempting to enter the legal profession based on fake or unrecognised law degrees. The controversy surrounding fake advocates and verification of law degrees is not a trivial issue. It goes to the heart of public confidence in the administration of justice. A petition was filed seeking nationwide verification of educational qualifications, enrolment credentials and the practice status of advocates following concerns expressed in this regard. It’s a statutory responsibility of the BCI to protect the legal profession. The Council should primarily focus on the integrity of legal education, standards of professional conduct, the authenticity of qualifications, and the competence of advocates. In fact, the real threats are from fraudulent credentials, impersonation, forged documents, unrecognised degrees and many other unlawful means. Such so-called lawyers can deceive litigants, compromise court proceedings and damage public confidence in the justice system. If the BCI is really interested, it must be directed towards those dangers.

Recent incident:

It is relevant to look at the issue before the Andhra Pradesh High Court because the BCI and its Chairman took a strong position in defence of a young advocate against what it considered disproportionate judicial action. In that case before a judge of the HC, a young advocate appearing in a matter was questioned about an earlier judicial order. The exchange turned into a disagreement over the applicable precedent. There was an exchange where the advocate’s file slipped from his hands. But the judge thought that the advocate had deliberately thrown the file against the podium. The young lawyer was rebuked as he thought it was short on diligence and improper.

Police personnel summoned and escorted the advocate to the Registrar (Judicial). He repeatedly apologised and sought pardon. Yet, the advocate was taken into judicial custody for 24 hours.

BCI’s strong reaction:

The BCI Chairman on May 6 wrote to the CJI describing the incident as deeply disturbing. Such an incident could have a chilling effect upon young lawyers and create fear. Even the Supreme Court Bar Association intervened. Its resolution warned that actions causing fear among young advocates could adversely affect the Bar’s independence.

SC intervention and HC resolution:

In a case between Bar Council of India v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, W.P.(C) No. 602 of 2026, the SC took cognisance of this incident. It reached the CJI, who considered the reports and the circumstances of the incident. However, by then the dispute had been resolved at the High Court level. The custody direction had been recalled, and no executable custody order ultimately operated against the lawyer.

Relevance of NALSAR controversy:

In the Andhra Pradesh High Court incident, the BCI considered that intimidation of a lawyer could damage the independence of the Bar; in the NALSAR case, the BCI Chairman’s initial action threatened something even more fundamental. One wonders if an advocate should not be intimidated in a courtroom, how could the future of an entire 2026 batch of NALSAR be threatened for exercising their peaceful constitutional dissent?

(The writer is a former Law Professor and Registrar of NALSAR University)

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Prof Madabhushi Sridhar Acharyulu

[email protected]