Campaign against CJI: BCI bars NALSAR 2026 grads' enrolment as advocates pending report

The Bar Council of India (BCI) has directed all State Bar Councils not to enrol 2026 law graduates of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, as advocates until further orders.

The decision comes amid reports of an organised campaign at the university concerning the proposed participation or invitation of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant at its convocation.

BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra said the Council had taken note of reports and material available in the public domain regarding the campaign.

The BCI has asked NALSAR Vice-Chancellor to submit an authenticated factual report within three days. The matter will be considered by the Council on August 19, 2026, after the report is received.

The Council has specifically asked the university to identify, based on verifiable material, those who were principally involved in initiating, drafting, circulating, coordinating or mobilising the campaign.

Details of campaign sought

The report must identify people involved in organising meetings, communicating with the media or administering any organised or social-media group used for coordination.

NALSAR has also been asked to provide details of anyone who proposed or mobilised a call for boycott, obstruction, disruption or organised non-participation in the convocation or any programme connected with the CJI.

The BCI has sought details of any student body, Student Bar Council, Students' Union or other recognised student organisation that may have been involved in initiating, approving, coordinating or circulating the campaign.

If any faculty member, research scholar, alumnus or outsider participated in initiating, drafting, coordinating, advising or facilitating the campaign, the university has been asked to specify the nature of that involvement.

University records under scrutiny

NALSAR has also been asked to provide copies of relevant resolutions, minutes, agendas and other official records of meetings held in connection with the matter.

The university must state whether permission was sought or granted for any protest or organised activity. It has also been asked whether any university rules concerning student conduct or official functions were invoked.

The BCI said participation in the representation or campaign alone would not automatically lead to disqualification from enrolment.

BCI draws distinction over participation

The Council said a distinction must be maintained between people who merely signed or supported a representation and those who organised or coordinated the campaign or proposed or mobilised an actual boycott, obstruction or disruption.

The BCI said that where material concerning the conduct of a particular applicant is under statutory examination, completing enrolment during the inquiry could create a fait accompli and render the examination ineffective.

It has therefore directed that when the BCI specifically communicates the name of a person for further statutory consideration, no enrolment order should be passed for that person.

If an application is already pending, the final decision must remain deferred during the inquiry.

No circumvention through another State Bar Council

The BCI has further directed State Bar Councils to ensure that a person whose name is communicated by the Council does not circumvent the pending examination by seeking enrolment before another State Bar Council.

However, the Council clarified that such communication at the preliminary stage would not itself amount to a conclusive finding of misconduct or disqualification.

Any final adverse decision, it said, would be taken in accordance with the Advocates Act, 1961, applicable rules and principles of natural justice.

BCI stresses right to critical debate

The BCI communication acknowledged that legal education permits critical reasoning, debate and analysis of judicial decisions.

At the same time, it said there was a distinction between reasoned criticism and conduct which, if established after due examination, may involve intimidation, obstruction, organised disruption or disregard of institutional responsibilities attached to the legal profession.

The BCI has asked NALSAR to furnish the authenticated factual report at the earliest. The communication has been issued to the university and the secretaries of all State Bar Councils for necessary compliance.

The matter is scheduled to be considered by the BCI on August 19, 2026, after receipt of the Vice-Chancellor's report.