BCI withdraws NALSAR enrolment freeze within hours, says all 2026 graduates can enrol

The Bar Council of India on Thursday (August 13, 2026) issued a direction to all State Bar Councils not to enrol students who graduated from NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, in 2026 only to withdraw it hours later.

In its initial communication, the BCI had directed the State Bar Councils to halt the graduates’ enrolment until further orders, pending an inquiry into a recent campaign by students opposing the proposed participation of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant in the university’s convocation.

However, it later withdrew the order, issued by its Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, saying that all graduates would be free to enrol with the State Bar Council of their choice. In the latest communication, the BCI said its members had unanimously concluded that the “vast majority” of the 2026 graduates were innocent and had not been inclined to participate in what the Council described as a “move of disrespect”.

The BCI, however, said it would await the inquiry report from the NALSAR Vice-Chancellor before deciding on further action. “No student shall be made to suffer without any fault on his part,” it said in the revised statement.

The dispute followed a representation by NALSAR students opposing the proposed participation of Justice Kant as the chief guest at their convocation, citing his remarks during proceedings concerning alleged police excesses against NEET protesters in the national capital.

In its previous communication, the BCI had sought an authenticated report from the NALSAR Vice-Chancellor on the campaign and asked the university to identify those who were principally instrumental in initiating, organising, coordinating or mobilising the campaign. It had also sought details of the representation submitted to the university and its signatories.

In its revised communication, the BCI said it had received information from “some reliable sources” that a “handful of teachers and outsiders” had been instrumental in “instigating the innocent students”.

The Council said it would take further action after receiving and examining the Vice-Chancellor’s inquiry report.

The BCI’s initial communication had said that participation in the campaign needed to be examined in the context of the standards of conduct expected of persons seeking entry into the legal profession. It had also distinguished between legitimate expression and conduct involving “organised intimidation, coercion, personal vilification, disruption, obstruction or an organised call for boycott” directed against a constitutional functionary or an institutional programme.

‘Such people always indulge in strikes and boycotts’

“A student of Law, having no regard or respect for the highest Judicial Office of the country, is not expected to be a responsible or sensible Advocate, Teacher or a Judge. Such persons shall always be a liability in the profession,” the BCI said in the initial communication.

“Such conduct, reflects adversely upon the person’s suitability for entry into or association with the legal profession and is inconsistent with the dignity, discipline and ethical standards of the legal profession. Our experience is that such people are always indulged in strikes and boycotts and tarnish the image of the Legal Profession,” it read.

It had asked the NALSAR Vice-Chancellor to furnish an authenticated report within three days, including a copy of the representation submitted to it. The university had also been asked to identify the students principallyinstrumental in initiating the campaign against CJI Kant.