Source : INDIA TODAY NEWS
Days after the Bar Council of India (BCI) ordered State Bar Councils to freeze the enrolment of NALSAR’s entire 2026 graduating batch, only to withdraw the move following widespread criticism and a rebuke from the Supreme Court, BCI chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra has apologised to law students and said they “must always remain free to express their views”.
In an Independence Day letter addressed to “young friends”, Mishra said the developments of the past few days had caused “concern and anguish” among a section of the student community.
advertisement
“If anything connected with the present controversy, any of my words, or letter, has hurt the feelings of our law students, I sincerely regret and apologise for the same,” Mishra wrote.
“There should be no hesitation in saying so. An expression of regret is not a matter of prestige or ego. It is simply an acknowledgment that the feelings and concerns of our students matter,” he added.
The apology comes after a controversy that began with a student campaign at the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR) in Hyderabad over the invitation to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as chief guest for its convocation.
More than 450 students had signed a representation to university authorities raising concerns over recent judicial developments, including the handling of alleged police excesses during the July 20 Parliament march.
The BCI subsequently issued an order on August 13 directing State Bar Councils not to enrol any student from NALSAR’s 2026 graduating batch as an advocate.
The Council also sought a report identifying those behind the student campaign and said a final decision would be taken on August 19.
The move triggered a wider debate over whether a statutory professional body could collectively punish students who were not yet members of the legal profession for participating in a protest.
BCI WITHDRAWS ORDER AFTER BACKLASH
Following widespread criticism, the BCI modified its position and allowed NALSAR’s 2026 graduating batch to enrol, saying the “vast majority” of students were innocent.
The Council subsequently dropped the proceedings altogether.
Mishra had earlier told India Today that “the matter stands closed” and that “everything has been withdrawn”.
“BCI stands for protecting the rights & interests of Law Students and Lawyers only,” he had said.
The episode, however, had already raised questions over the BCI’s powers and the manner in which its initial order was issued.
SUPREME COURT CALLS BCI MOVE ‘ABSOLUTELY UNNECESSARY’
The matter also reached the Supreme Court, where a bench headed by CJI Surya Kant criticised the BCI’s intervention.
The court called the now-withdrawn order “absolutely unnecessary” and said students had a right to protest.
It also directed that no punitive action be taken against NALSAR students or faculty at the instance of the BCI or State Bar Councils.
The Supreme Court questioned the BCI’s role in what it described as a dialogue between the students and the CJI.
The intervention had raised a fundamental question: could the BCI use its supervisory powers over State Bar Councils to impose a blanket enrolment freeze on an entire graduating batch because some students had participated in a campaign?
WHAT DOES THE ADVOCATES ACT SAY?
Under the Advocates Act, 1961, admission of people to a State roll is primarily a function of State Bar Councils.
Section 6 empowers a State Bar Council to “admit persons as advocates on its roll” and maintain that roll. Section 25 provides that applications for enrolment are made to the State Bar Council in whose jurisdiction the applicant proposes to practise.
The BCI does have significant supervisory powers. Section 7 gives it general supervision and control over State Bar Councils and also empowers it to set standards for legal education and recognise universities whose law degrees qualify students for enrolment.
Section 48B further allows the BCI to issue directions to State Bar Councils for the proper and efficient discharge of their functions.
However, the Act also provides specific mechanisms for action against people who are already enrolled as advocates.
Section 26(1), for instance, allows the BCI to remove a name from a roll where it is satisfied that the person secured entry through misrepresentation of an essential fact, fraud or undue influence, after giving the person an opportunity to be heard.
The Act separately provides disciplinary mechanisms for advocates accused of professional or other misconduct.
The NALSAR graduates, however, were not yet advocates on a State roll when the BCI issued its initial order.
That distinction became central to the controversy, with questions being raised over whether the BCI could impose a collective enrolment freeze on students before they had entered the profession.
A senior corporate lawyer working for a media conglomerate had told India Today Digital on condition of anonymity that the BCI chairperson had “repeatedly used his office to issue orders or directives on matters that are, at best, within the jurisdiction of the Council”.
“The law never granted him such powers, and yet he continues to employ them willy nilly,” the lawyer said.
“A statutory body for the regulation of lawyers, perhaps more than any other organisation, should be mindful of the limits of their jurisdiction. By permitting him to continue occupying the chair, the Council is reducing itself to a farce,” the lawyer added.
MISHRA SAYS STUDENTS NEED NO ONE TO DECIDE FOR THEM
In his latest letter, Mishra directly addressed the question of student independence.
He described law students, particularly those at National Law Universities and other leading centres of legal education, as among the country’s “most informed and discerning young citizens”.
“They study the Constitution, the Rule of Law, fairness and the importance of hearing all sides before reaching a conclusion. They are fully capable of applying their own independent minds,” he wrote.
“They do not require anyone to decide for them. Nor should they be subjected to pressure or influence from any quarter.”
Mishra said National Law Universities occupy an important position in Indian legal education and that the choices of their students are watched across the legal education system.
He said students at such institutions would go on to become advocates, senior advocates, teachers, scholars and judges, with some potentially occupying the highest positions in India’s legal and judicial system.
“That is why their decisions carry significance beyond a single event or controversy,” he wrote.
‘PEACEFUL DISAGREEMENT, QUESTIONING AND PROTEST ARE IMPORTANT’
Mishra also explicitly backed the right of students to disagree and protest.
“Peaceful disagreement, questioning and protest are important features of a constitutional democracy. Students must always remain free to express their views,” he wrote.
At the same time, he said the legal tradition required issues to be reconsidered objectively when further facts or clarifications emerged.
“There is no inconsistency between expressing a genuine grievance and thereafter fairly considering a clarification,” Mishra said.
He also addressed the NALSAR convocation, calling it a “very special occasion” in the life of a graduating student and their family after years of hard work.
Mishra said the decision to attend the convocation must ultimately remain with the students.
“No student should be compelled to attend, and no student should feel compelled to abstain,” he wrote.
His appeal was that students should make the decision independently after considering the matter in its entirety and according to their own judgment.
‘LET THE STUDENTS EXAMINE THE MATTER THEMSELVES’
Mishra called for the controversy to be resolved through dialogue and mutual respect.
“The relationship between the Judiciary, the Bar, Universities and law students is much deeper and more enduring than any temporary controversy,” he wrote.
“Differences may arise and strong views may be expressed, but such differences should ultimately be capable of resolution through dialogue, clarification and mutual respect.”
He said the BCI regarded law students as the future of the legal profession and that their “dignity, independence of thought and legitimate concerns must always be respected”.
At the same time, he said dialogue, mutual respect and constitutional values were equally important to the profession they were preparing to enter.
“I therefore sincerely hope that the present issue will now be considered with fairness and a spirit of reconciliation,” Mishra wrote.
He urged that the controversy not acquire a “political or extraneous colour through outside influence”.
“Our law students are mature and discerning enough to examine the facts, consider the clarification offered, and take their own independent decision,” he said.
“Let the students examine the matter themselves. Let every institution respect their independence of thought.”
Mishra also called for enough space for dialogue and moving forward without bitterness wherever clarification had been offered.
CALLS FOR MISHRA’S RESIGNATION
The BCI’s initial action had also triggered calls for Mishra’s resignation.
Saurav Das, co-convenor of the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), called for Mishra to step down after the Supreme Court criticised the BCI’s intervention.
“Moral responsibility commands that Manan Kumar Mishra resign. Cockroaches both inside and outside courts should ensure this happens,” Das said in a post on X.
AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi also criticised the BCI and Mishra over the episode.
“The BCI Chairman first directed State Bar Councils not to enrol NALSAR’s 2026 graduates as advocates. The BCI has now withdrawn that order and instead ordered an inquiry into who organised the student campaign over the CJI’s participation in the convocation. What power does the BCI or its chairman have to do this?” Owaisi said.
CJP CAMPAIGN ALSO LINKS BACK TO CJI REMARKS
The NALSAR controversy also comes against the backdrop of a separate political campaign that grew around remarks by CJI Surya Kant referring to unemployed youths as “cockroaches”.
Those remarks gave rise to the Cockroach Janata Party, which turned the phrase into a broader campaign around concerns of young people.
In the NALSAR row, the CJI has since backed the students’ right to dissent and protest, while the BCI has withdrawn its action against the graduating batch.
Mishra’s latest letter now seeks to draw a line under the controversy by stressing independent thought, constitutional values and dialogue.
“Our students are the future leaders of the Bar, the Bench and legal academia. Their greatest strength will always be their ability to think independently, listen to differing viewpoints and reach conclusions guided by reason, fairness and the Constitution,” he wrote.
He ended the Independence Day message by saying that “independent thought, mutual respect and constitutional responsibility” were among the most meaningful principles that could be reaffirmed.
“I once again wish all law students, teachers, members of the Bar and fellow citizens a very happy Independence Day,” Mishra wrote.
– Ends
SOURCE :- TIMES OF INDIA
