The Student Bar Council (SBC) at NALSAR University of Law has firmly criticized the Bar Council of India (BCI) and its Chairman, Manan Kumar Mishra, over recent circulars that sought disciplinary action against students and faculty. The SBC is demanding a formal apology from Mishra, who has yet to retract his claims that certain faculty and external influences have incited student actions.
In a statement issued on Independence Day, the SBC expressed that Mishra’s actions do not align with the responsibilities of his office or the constitutional principles he is meant to uphold. Despite a subsequent post on platform X, the BCI Chairman did not withdraw his prior accusations. “We demand an apology from the BCI Chairperson for making such objectionable comments,” the statement declared.
The SBC’s statement also challenged the BCI’s perspective that constitutional fidelity equates to silence, asserting that no institution, including the Supreme Court and its Chief Justice, is exempt from rightful scrutiny. They emphasized that the rights to dissent, protest, and hold public institutions accountable are central to a democratic society. “Judicial accountability is not opposed to judicial independence but is one of its crucial safeguards,” the statement added.
Although acknowledging the withdrawal of the initial letter and the resolution of the immediate cause of contention, the SBC reiterated their disapproval of the BCI’s actions. They argued that under Section 7 of the Advocates Act, the BCI’s role is confined to setting professional standards and promoting legal education. The SBC also pointed out that Section 24A of the Advocates Act, 1961 limits disqualifications from enrolment to criminal convictions, which were not relevant in this situation. Hence, instructing State Bar Councils to restrict enrolment from the 2026 batch was deemed inconsistent with the BCI’s statutory remit.
Furthermore, the SBC criticized the BCI’s inappropriate reliance on the precedent set in Harish Uppal v. Union of India. They argued that the case pertained specifically to the BCI’s authority over advocates in the context of strikes and boycotts affecting justice administration. “Using the Court’s observations from that case to justify a different exercise of power is a misapplication of the judgment,” the SBC asserted.
More Read
The SBC also commented on Section 49 of the Advocates Act, stating that it is a rule-making provision that cannot unilaterally impose new enrolment conditions. Additionally, they condemned the BCI’s attempt to identify students, faculty, and alumni involved as an intrusive breach of privacy.
The SBC put this episode in the context of Mishra’s political affiliations, noting his role as a BJP-elected Rajya Sabha MP. They suggested that the effort to label dissenting voices as “outsiders” is reminiscent of a broader trend of branding dissent as conspiratorial.
In conclusion, the SBC expressed gratitude to NALSAR’s administration, particularly Vice-Chancellor Srikrishna Deva Rao, and its alumni for their support. The controversy began when outgoing students requested reconsideration of inviting CJI Surya Kant as the convocation’s chief guest, leading to two BCI circulars. The initial circular sought to bar the 2026 batch from enrolment, while a subsequent one, issued shortly after, reversed the enrolment block but upheld the inquiry into those responsible for organizing the protest against the CJI’s invitation. Following these developments, the Vice-Chancellor announced that the university would assess the constitutionality of such an inquiry, only for the BCI Chairman to later announce on platform X that the issue was closed.
