HYDERABAD: The Bar Council of India’s (BCI) decision to defer the enrolment of NALSAR University of Law’s 2026 graduates, followed by a modification of the order within an hour, has triggered reactions from legal circles and on social media.
Former Advocate-General and senior advocate K Ramakrishna Reddy told TNIE the BCI had no jurisdiction to direct State Bar Councils against enrolling NALSAR graduates who completed their courses in 2026. Describing the original direction as “manifestly arbitrary” and “without jurisdiction”, he said the BCI’s powers under the Advocates Act primarily concerned professional standards, ethics and conduct.
Once a student obtains a recognised law degree, he or she is entitled to seek enrolment with the concerned State Bar Council and there is no separate enrolment with the Supreme Court, he said.
Ramakrishna Reddy said the BCI could regulate the conduct of advocates after enrolment and take action for professional misconduct, but could not prevent law graduates from entering the profession merely on the ground that they participated in a protest.
He said the affected graduates could approach the courts and challenge the BCI’s direction through a writ petition. However, he said courts might examine the issue cautiously as the controversy involved a reference to the Chief Justice of India.
The BCI subsequently modified its earlier decision, stating that the “vast majority” of students were innocent and were not inclined to participate in the alleged move to show disrespect.
The initial decision also drew criticism on social media. Abhijeet Dipke, founder and national convener of the Cockroach Janta Party, questioned whether students could be collectively penalised for participating in a protest and urged the BCI to reconsider its stand.
CJP spokesperson Saurav Das said the BCI’s decision to halt the enrolment of NALSAR’s 2026 graduating students, reportedly because they opposed the invitation to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as chief guest, was “grossly disproportionate, deeply troubling and prima facie indefensible”. “Students cannot be collectively penalised for expressing dissent over a ceremonial invitation. The CJP condemns this order,” he said.
Another post by Sanjoy Ghose also criticised the move, saying the graduating students had not resorted to violence but had merely submitted a representation to their university. Moksha, a corporate lawyer, wrote on social media: “What message are you giving lawyers? Instead of urging them to speak truth to power, you’re telling them to shut up and stay in their lane. This bodes badly for the profession.”
The rapid modification of the order has since fuelled a wider debate over the BCI’s powers, students’ right to protest and whether an entire graduating batch can be subjected to professional consequences for the alleged actions of some students.
