The Student Bar Council, which is the elected student body at NALSAR University of Law, has condemned the Bar Council of India for first issuing the now-withdrawn ban on the outgoing NALSAR batch of 2026 and demanded an apology from BCI chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra for “objectionable comments” against students and faculty.

The controversy stems from a campaign started by around 450 out of NALSAR’s 1,400 students against inviting Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant to the university convocation. The BCI on Thursday directed all state bar councils not to enrol any 2026 graduate from NALSAR University of Law as an advocate until further notice – but as criticism mounted, Mishra soon withdrew the diktat.

The student body’s letter was issued late on Friday. “We acknowledge the rescission of the (BCI) letters and the extinguishment of the cause of action. However, even then, it is important for us to record our condemnation of this event at four levels: statutory, constitutional, first principles, and in light of the wider social realities of repression and unfreedom,” it states.

“We reject the notion that constitutional fidelity requires silence… No institution, including the Supreme Court and the CJI, are beyond legitimate scrutiny in a constitutional democracy, and judicial accountability is not the antithesis of judicial independence but one of its essential safeguards. Universities exist to cultivate these values, to nurture independent thought, critical inquiry, and the courage to question authority. A university that cannot accommodate dissent ceases to be a university; a legal profession that fears criticism ceases to serve the Constitution,” it reads.

The statement says that the BCI’s initial letter does not align with the council’s statutory functions. “The letter seeks to surveil the identities of virtually everyone involved in the alleged campaign, including its initiators, drafters, organisers, coordinators, mobilisers, spokespersons, social-media administrators, office-bearers of student bodies, faculty, research scholars, alumni, and external participants… asking for such details is an intrusive violation of privacy, considering that it involves revealing the identities of students, who may face potential long-term consequences,” it reads.

The students pointed out that the language of the letters was highly objectionable because it talked of “groupism” and “dirty politics” within the University and the role of faculty in “misleading, misguiding and instigating students.” The students wrote, “These allegations are unprofessional, unfounded, and without any substance. Making such claims against members of the University family for mere peaceful expression of legitimate dissent is uncalled for and reeks of malice”.

The students further wrote that BCI’s demands are in violation of “Article 19(1)(a) which explicitly states that all citizens will have the right to freedom of speech and expression”.

Story continues below this ad

The letter further read, “NALSAR is facing a defining choice: whether to acquiesce in the shrinking of democratic space or to affirm that universities are not extensions of the state, that regulators are not instruments for policing political opinion, and that constitutional freedoms do not become expendable when they are inconvenient. We owe that commitment not only to ourselves, but to all those who lack the privilege and visibility that we possess as part of an elite institution. The question is not whether dissent is comfortable; it is whether it will remain possible.”