A directive issued by Bar Council of India (BCI) chairman and Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra Thursday evening, barring the 2026 graduating batch of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, from enrolling with state Bar councils and seeking an inquiry against them, was walked back twice within hours.

In the six hours between issuing the directive and rolling it back fully, at least four of the BCI’s 19 office bearers pushed back on it immediately — three opposing the order outright, and a fourth seeking changes. NALSAR’s Vice Chancellor refused to implement the directive immediately, calling it potentially “unconstitutional” and the Cockroach Janta Party, which spearheaded the Jantar Mantar protest, sprung into action, calling all “legal cockroaches to unite”.

Besides barring the 2026 batch from enrolment, Mishra’s original directive, issued around 6.30 pm Thursday, also asked NALSAR’s Vice-Chancellor to conduct an inquiry into who had started a campaign among the university’s students, earlier in the week, against inviting Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to their convocation.

Five BCI office bearers told that Mishra had taken the decision on his own, without consulting colleagues, and had signed and published the directive, on the BCI letterhead, before seeking his colleagues’ approval in the council’s WhatsApp group.

“This was a decision taken by Mr Mishra on his own,” Advocate Manoj Kumar N, Vice-Chairman of the BCI’s executive committee, told . “After issuing the letter, it was posted in the WhatsApp group for approval.” Kumar said he was “really shocked” to see it.

Ten of the BCI’s 19 office bearers approved the letter on the group, according to two office bearers, while at least three opposed it outright: Kumar, Senior Advocate Y R Sadasiva Reddy, the BCI’s Co-Chairman, and Advocate A Rami Reddy, Member, BCI. A fourth, Co-Chairman Advocate Ved Prakash Sharma, did not oppose the letter outright but asked for it to be modified.

RECAP | In CJI boycott row, BCI’s u-turn on NALSAR grads’ ‘ban’

Story continues below this ad

Both Sadasiva Reddy and Rami Reddy confirmed their disapproval of the directive. Sadasiva Reddy said Mishra had told members not to worry, and that he would modify the order.

“The chairman immediately agreed to the suggestions given by the other members,” said a fourth BCI member, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “Sometimes it is done with the confidence that it will be approved by the other members, but this time it was not, and the members expressed different views.”

He also said that the discussion had centred on proportionality: “The BCI should not get into this because there is no complaint or report of any enormous acts of indiscipline by the students, so the students should not get punished unnecessarily.”

It is learnt that several members in the council were unaware that the directive was already in the public domain when it was being discussed for over an hour on the WhatsApp group.

Story continues below this ad

Later that evening, around 8.20 pm, the BCI published a second letter stating that “after detailed deliberation, the BCI has modified its earlier directions”, withdrawing the bar on enrolment. The letter also distanced itself from the first: it referred to the earlier directive as “the letter issued by the Chairman, Bar Council of India” – not as a decision of the council – and said members had, “after thorough discussion,” reached the “unanimous view” to “modify the order of the Chairman”.

At 8.28 pm, Mishra also personally responded on X to a post by Saurav Das, Co-convenor, Cockroach Janta Party calling “legal cockroaches to unite” and hold the BCI chairman accountable. “Council has already withdrawn that letter,” Mishra said.

However, within a few hours, Professor Srikrishna Deva Rao, Vice Chancellor of NALSAR, issued a press statement stating that the BCI directive to conduct an inquiry against students will not be implemented immediately.

“Given the nature of the request, the University will have to consider whether conducting such an inquiry will be a constitutional exercise of its powers. In order to assist the University, assess whether conducting such an inquiry would be constitutional and permissible under the University’s governance regulations, the matter will be placed before the Executive Council of the University,” the statement said.

Story continues below this ad

That order, too, did not survive the night. At 12.43 am Friday, Mishra announced on his X account that “after considering the representations and reactions of Senior Advocates, learned members of the Bar, law students and public spirited citizens,” the BCI had closed all proceedings against the 2026 batch and that no further action would be required from the university administration – closing the inquiry order that the second letter had retained.