‘Who are they to interfere?’ CJI Surya Kant puts BCI on the spot in NALSAR row

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has directed the Bar Council of India to respond to its circulars concerning NALSAR University of Law and said no punitive action should be taken against the university's students or faculty over the controversy.

During the hearing, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant expressed displeasure over the BCI's intervention in the matter and questioned its authority to interfere with the interaction between him and NALSAR students.

“It’s a dialogue between me and students; who are they (BCI) to interfere?” CJI Surya Kant said.

The court also said that students have a right to protest and questioned the BCI's decision to issue directions affecting the enrolment of NALSAR's 2026 graduating batch.

SC seeks BCI response

The Supreme Court has sought the BCI's response on the circulars issued in connection with the NALSAR controversy.

The court also directed that no punitive action be taken against NALSAR students or faculty while the matter is being considered.

The observations came after the BCI had issued directions that affected the enrolment of the university's 2026 graduates as advocates.

CJI questions BCI intervention

CJI Surya Kant reportedly questioned why the BCI had intervened in a matter involving communication between him and NALSAR students.

His remarks came amid the controversy over an alleged campaign at NALSAR linked to his proposed participation in the university's convocation.

The BCI had initially sought a factual inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the campaign and those allegedly involved.

BCI withdraws controversial order

Following the controversy, BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra said the Council held an emergency meeting and completely withdrew the order.

Mishra told ANI that there would be no inquiry against the students.

“There will be no inquiry; there will be no inquiry whatsoever, nothing of the sort will happen,” Mishra said.

He said the BCI did not want students to face any professional or academic setback because of the issue.

Why the BCI order mattered

The earlier BCI action had raised concerns because it could have affected the professional enrolment of NALSAR's 2026 graduates.

Mishra said the Council's objective was to ensure that law students did not face obstacles in securing judicial internships or entering the legal profession.

He also said students should not be punished for circumstances in which they were not at fault.

“My belief is that students should not face any hardship during their internships,” Mishra said.

What happens to NALSAR students now?

The BCI's withdrawal means the 2026 graduates can proceed with their enrolment before the State Bar Councils of their choice, according to the clarification.

The Supreme Court has separately said that no punitive action should be taken against the students or faculty while it considers the BCI's circulars.

The case has brought renewed attention to the right of students to protest, the autonomy of universities and the limits of regulatory intervention in law education.

Analysis

The latest developments mark a significant shift from the BCI's initial position. The Council had moved towards an inquiry and issued directions affecting NALSAR graduates, but has now withdrawn that order after the Supreme Court's intervention.

The Supreme Court's observations also put the focus on whether a regulatory body can take action affecting students because of a protest or campaign within a university.

For now, the immediate protection for NALSAR students and faculty is that no punitive action is to be taken against them, while the BCI has been asked to respond to the court's questions on its circulars.