Bar Council Chairman Apologizes to Students Following CJI Kant's Remarks in NALSAR Controversy

Chandigarh, India Aug 16, 2026 ALN: A day after Chief Justice of India Surya Kant criticized the Bar Council of India (BCI) for its involvement in the NALSAR University of Law enrollment controversy, BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra issued an apology to law students. He stated that he sincerely regretted if anything related to the controversy, including his words or letters, had hurt their feelings.

In an Independence Day letter addressed to “my dear young friends,” Mishra acknowledged that recent developments had caused “concern and anguish” among some students. He emphasized that whenever students feel hurt or aggrieved, their concerns should be addressed “with patience, sensitivity, and respect.” This sentiment reflects a growing recognition of the importance of mental well-being and emotional support in academic environments, particularly in law schools where students often face immense pressure.

“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 apologize for the same,” Mishra stated. He added, “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.” This apology is significant as it highlights the relationship between the governing bodies of legal education and the student body, emphasizing the need for open communication and understanding.

The apology followed CJI Kant's assertion that the BCI had “no business” interfering in the NALSAR controversy, affirming that students have the right to protest as long as their actions remain lawful and peaceful. The bench, led by CJI Kant and including justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, also restrained the BCI and state bar councils from taking punitive or criminal actions against students and faculty involved in the controversy. This judicial intervention underscores the judiciary's role as a protector of students' rights, particularly in matters concerning free expression and academic autonomy.

This situation arose after the BCI's abrupt reversal regarding the enrollment of the 2026 graduating batch of NALSAR, Hyderabad. Initially, the council directed state bar councils not to enroll the students “till further orders.” However, hours later, it retracted the freeze while maintaining an inquiry into allegations that some faculty and outsiders had instigated or misled students. On Friday, Mishra announced that proceedings against the entire 2026 batch were being closed. The back-and-forth nature of the BCI's decisions reflects the complexities involved in managing educational governance while also addressing student grievances.

Mishra's latest letter aims to resolve the controversy, emphasizing that law students should be free to form their own opinions. He stated, “Our law students, particularly those studying in the National Law Universities and other leading Centres of Legal Education, are among the most informed and discerning young citizens of the country.” He highlighted that they study the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the importance of hearing all sides before reaching a conclusion, asserting that they “do not require anyone to decide for them.” This acknowledgment of students’ intellectual maturity is crucial in fostering an environment where critical thinking and independent thought are encouraged.

Furthermore, Mishra acknowledged the significance of dissent, stating that peaceful disagreement, questioning, and protest are “important features of a constitutional democracy.” He affirmed that students “must always remain free to express their views.” This statement aligns with democratic principles and highlights the role of educational institutions in nurturing future leaders who can engage in constructive dialogue and dissent.

He also clarified that issues could be revisited if further facts or clarifications arise. “There is no inconsistency between expressing a genuine grievance and thereafter fairly considering a clarification,” he noted. This suggests that the BCI is open to ongoing discussions and is willing to adapt its stance based on new information, which is essential for maintaining trust and credibility among students.

Regarding the NALSAR convocation, Mishra stated that the decision to attend should ultimately rest with the students. “No student should be compelled to attend, and no student should feel compelled to abstain,” he advised, urging them to make their decisions independently after considering the matter thoroughly. This approach respects student autonomy and emphasizes the importance of personal choice in academic settings.

The controversy began when some NALSAR students objected to CJI Kant being invited as the chief guest for their convocation this year, citing remarks he made during proceedings concerning alleged police excesses during student protests in Delhi. They questioned whether his invitation aligned with NALSAR’s commitment to constitutional rights and access to justice. This incident highlights the broader societal issues concerning the relationship between law enforcement and student activism, as well as the responsibilities of educational institutions to uphold their values.

Following the backlash, the BCI sought an authenticated report from NALSAR to identify those who initiated or organized the campaign against CJI Kant’s participation in the convocation. However, this intervention led to significant pushback, culminating in a Supreme Court hearing. The dynamics of this situation illustrate the tensions between administrative authority and student rights, raising questions about the limits of institutional control in academic environments.

During the hearing, CJI Kant remarked, “The BCI is unnecessarily taking action in this matter. If students have a cause or a reason to protest, they have a right to protest. Nobody can stop them, and we will not allow this.” This assertion from the judiciary reinforces the notion that students are entitled to express their dissent and engage in activism, a principle that is foundational to democratic societies.

He also shared his own experiences with student activism, stating that as long as students protest lawfully and peacefully, “they have a right to raise their voice.” This personal connection to student activism serves to humanize the judicial perspective and encourages students to view the judiciary as an ally in their pursuit of justice and accountability.

The bench questioned whether the BCI Council had convened to make decisions regarding the NALSAR students, asking for an explanation in response to the court. This line of questioning reflects the judiciary's role in ensuring that institutional processes are transparent and accountable, particularly when they impact the rights of students.

Mishra's letter seeks to promote reconciliation rather than confrontation, stating, “The relationship between the Judiciary, the Bar, Universities, and law students is much deeper and more enduring than any temporary controversy.” He emphasized that differences should be resolvable through “dialogue, clarification, and mutual respect.” This call for reconciliation highlights the importance of collaborative relationships among the various stakeholders in legal education.

He reiterated that the BCI regards law students as the future of the legal profession, and their “dignity, independence of thought, and legitimate concerns must always be respected.” This acknowledgment of students' potential and agency is essential for fostering a culture of respect and empowerment within legal education.

Mishra concluded by appealing that the controversy should not take on a “political or extraneous color through outside influence,” asserting that students are mature enough to examine the facts and make their own decisions. “Let the students examine the matter themselves. Let every institution respect their independence of thought,” he urged. This final remark encapsulates the essence of the dialogue surrounding this controversy, emphasizing the need for institutions to trust in the capabilities of their students and to maintain an environment conducive to free thought and expression.