The Bar Council of India (BCI) on Thursday reversed its earlier decision to restrict the enrolment of 2026 graduates of NALSAR University of Law with State Bar Councils, saying all students from the varsity would now be entitled to enrol with the State Bar Council of their choice.
The reversal came hours after the BCI had directed all State Bar Councils not to enrol any 2026 law graduate from the Hyderabad-based law school as an advocate until further orders, following opposition from a section of students to a proposal to invite Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant as chief guest at the varsity’s convocation.
Around 450 students from the university emailed the vice-chancellor on July 23, citing the CJI’s recent remarks and conduct during proceedings concerning protests over the NEET-UG examination leak controversy and the alleged police brutality against protesters during the peaceful 'Chalo Sansad' demonstration in New Delhi on July 20. They urged the university to "strongly reconsider" the invitation and consult the graduating batch before taking a final decision.
The BCI said the reversal followed a discussion by the Council and its consideration of a latest report that the vast majority of NALSAR's 2026 graduating students were innocent and had not intended to participate in any move aimed at showing disrespect.
In a communication dated August 13, 2026, signed by BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, the Council said it had "thoroughly discussed and deliberated" on the earlier communication issued the same day concerning the factual inquiry and enrolment of NALSAR's 2026 passed-out students.
"Accordingly, the Council modifies the order of the Chairman with regard to the ban on the enrolment of the NALSAR Students with the State Bar Councils. All the students will be entitled to get enrolled with the State Bar Councils of their choice," the communication states.
The BCI, however, said it would await the inquiry report from the Vice-Chancellor of NALSAR before deciding what further action, if any, is required.
In its earlier order, the BCI had sought a factual report from the university on those allegedly instrumental in initiating and organising a campaign concerning CJI Kant’s participation in its convocation.
The Council also said it had received reports from "some reliable sources" that a handful of teachers and outsiders were instrumental in allegedly instigating the students. The BCI said further action would be taken after receiving the inquiry report from the Vice-Chancellor.
BCI Chairman Mishra said the Council had taken note of reports and material in the public domain regarding an organised campaign at NALSAR relating to the proposed participation or invitation of the Chief Justice of India in connection with the university’s convocation.
The BCI has asked the Vice-Chancellor to furnish an authenticated factual report within three days and directed the university to identify, on the basis of verifiable material, those principally involved in initiating, drafting, circulating, coordinating or mobilising the campaign.
The report is also required to identify those involved in organising meetings, communicating with the media, administering any organised or social media group used for coordination, or proposing or mobilising any call for a boycott, obstruction, disruption or organised non-participation in the convocation or any programme connected with the CJI.
The BCI has further asked NALSAR to provide details of any student body, Student Bar Council, Students’ Union or other recognised student organisation involved in initiating, approving, coordinating or circulating the campaign.
If any faculty member, research scholar, alumnus or outsider participated in initiating, drafting, coordinating, advising or facilitating the campaign, the university has been asked to specify the nature of such involvement.
The university has also been asked to provide copies of relevant resolutions, minutes, agendas or other official records of meetings held in connection with the matter, and to state whether permission was sought or granted for any protest or organised activity and whether any university rules concerning student conduct or official functions were invoked.
At the same time, the BCI said participation in an aforesaid representation or campaign by itself would not automatically mean disqualification from enrolment. It said a distinction must be maintained between persons who merely signed or supported a representation and those who organised or coordinated the campaign or proposed or mobilised an actual boycott, obstruction or disruption.
The Council said that where material concerning the conduct of a particular applicant is under statutory examination, completion of enrolment during the pendency of such examination could create a fait accompli and render the examination ineffective.
It therefore directed that where the BCI specifically communicates the name of a person for further statutory consideration, no enrolment order should be passed in respect of that person and, if an application is already pending, the final decision should remain deferred during the inquiry.
The BCI has also directed State Bar Councils to ensure that a person whose name is communicated by it does not circumvent the pending examination by seeking enrolment before another State Bar Council.
It clarified that such communication at the preliminary stage would not itself constitute a conclusive finding of misconduct or disqualification.
The Council said any final adverse decision would be taken in accordance with the Advocates Act, 1961, the applicable rules and principles of natural justice.
The BCI communication also emphasised that legal education permits critical reasoning, debate and analysis of judicial decisions, but said there is a distinction between reasoned criticism and conduct which, if established after due examination, may involve intimidation, obstruction, organised disruption or disregard of institutional responsibilities attached to the legal profession.
The Council has asked NALSAR to furnish the authenticated factual report at the earliest and said the matter would be considered on August 19, 2026, after receipt of the Vice-Chancellor’s report.
The communication has been issued to NALSAR as well as the secretaries of all State Bar Councils for necessary compliance.
(With inputs from ANI)