NLSIU Community Opposes CJI Surya Kant's Attendance at Convocation Amid NALSAR Controversy

New Delhi, India Aug 16, 2026 ALN: The National Law School of India University (NLSIU) has recently witnessed a significant pushback from its students and alumni regarding the attendance of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra at the university’s forthcoming convocation. This controversy is rooted in the BCI's actions directed towards NALSAR University of Law, which had sparked considerable debate and concern within the legal academic community.

The BCI had previously issued an order that directed state bar councils to refrain from enrolling the graduating class of 2026 from NALSAR, Hyderabad. This order led to widespread condemnation from various quarters, including students, alumni, and legal scholars. In a collective statement dated August 15, a robust group comprising 165 graduating students, 409 current students, and 128 alumni of NLSIU expressed their discontent with the BCI’s decision. They emphasized their solidarity with the affected NALSAR students, highlighting the perceived injustice and the implications of such actions on the educational and professional futures of the students involved.

The statement issued by the NLSIU community underscored the gravity of the BCI's actions, describing them as unconstitutional and illegal. Although the BCI later withdrew its order and closed all proceedings against NALSAR, the NLSIU students and alumni argued that the mere initiation of such proceedings by a statutory body against a public university's students and faculty was alarming. They maintained that this situation raised serious questions about the accountability and oversight of the BCI, particularly regarding its responsibilities towards law students across India.

Convocations are traditionally significant events in academic calendars, symbolizing the culmination of years of hard work and dedication by students. The NLSIU community expressed that inviting high-ranking officials, such as the CJI and the BCI Chairman, who have been associated with actions perceived as disparaging towards students, is inappropriate and undermines the celebratory nature of the event. The statement articulated that such invitations could be seen as offensive and humiliating, particularly given the context of the ongoing tensions between the BCI and NALSAR students.

In their statement, the NLSIU community not only called for an apology from the BCI to the students and faculty of NALSAR but also highlighted the broader implications of the BCI’s actions on free speech and dissent within academic institutions. They argued that the BCI's previous conduct has created a chilling effect, which may discourage students from voicing their opinions or protesting against perceived injustices in the future. This concern reflects a growing sentiment among students and legal professionals regarding the importance of maintaining a vibrant culture of debate and dissent in educational settings.

Furthermore, the NLSIU students and alumni expressed their disapproval of Mishra’s potential attendance at the convocation, reiterating that accountability for the BCI's actions must be taken seriously. They similarly opposed CJI Surya Kant's role as Chief Guest, suggesting that his participation would be inconsistent with the values of solidarity and justice that the legal community strives to uphold. The students echoed the sentiments of their counterparts at NALSAR, who had previously requested a reconsideration of the Chief Justice’s selection as the Chief Guest for their own convocation.

This controversy has gained further traction following a recent Supreme Court bench led by CJI Surya Kant, which publicly criticized the BCI regarding its order targeting NALSAR graduates. During a hearing, Chief Justice Kant remarked that the relationship between students and the judiciary should be one of dialogue and understanding. He questioned the rationale behind the BCI’s decision, emphasizing the students' right to protest and express their views. This statement marked a pivotal moment, as it prompted the BCI to withdraw its order shortly thereafter, illustrating the power of judicial oversight in matters affecting educational institutions.

The implications of this incident extend beyond the immediate concerns of the NLSIU and NALSAR communities. It raises critical questions about the role of regulatory bodies in the legal education system and the extent to which they can influence students' rights and opportunities. The situation also highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability within the BCI, as well as the importance of protecting academic freedom and the ability of students to engage in meaningful discourse without fear of retribution.

As the NLSIU community prepares for its convocation, the opposition to the attendance of CJI Surya Kant and BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra serves as a reminder of the ongoing struggles for justice and equity within the legal education landscape. The actions taken by students and alumni reflect a broader commitment to uphold the values of dignity, respect, and solidarity within the legal profession, ensuring that the voices of all students are heard and valued.