For the graduating class of the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), the cancellation of their 34th Annual Convocation marks an irreplaceable loss. While degrees can be awarded in absentia and certificates dispatched home, the essence of the ceremonial walk across the stage, the presence of family, and the collective celebration with peers cannot be replicated. The absence of this significant event is indeed regrettable, and it is important to acknowledge that students have lost something meaningful.
However, there is a deeper loss that should concern law students and law universities alike: the erosion of the capacity to dissent. NLSIU attributed the cancellation to “unavoidable circumstances,” yet the backdrop of recent events suggests a different narrative. The decision appears intertwined with the controversy surrounding the anticipated attendance of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra. This distinction is critical, as the context of the cancellation has transformed it from a mere scheduling issue to a symbol of larger tensions within legal education.
The situation escalated when students from NALSAR University of Law questioned the presence of certain dignitaries at their convocation, leading to a broader debate. The BCI’s temporary move to prevent an entire graduating class from enrolling as advocates further intensified the situation. Students from NLSIU supported their peers, highlighting a pivotal issue: whether law students can challenge institutional authority without jeopardizing their professional futures.
Disagreement with the students’ methods is almost beside the point. Dissent that requires protection only when it is agreeable is hardly a right. Law universities, which teach students to scrutinize judgments and challenge arbitrary power, should not be uneasy when these principles are applied internally. This is what makes NLSIU’s decision to cancel its convocation significant.
India’s law schools have excelled at producing graduates ready for the job market, creating a clear professional pathway involving moots, internships, and corporate offers. While there’s nothing inherently wrong with this trajectory, it risks overshadowing another crucial aspect of legal education: fostering individuals who can be institutionally challenging, a trait of increasing importance in India today.
More Read
The 2026 Academic Freedom Index, developed by researchers at Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU) and the V-Dem Institute, ranks India among nations experiencing a significant decline in academic freedom. This index considers not only the freedom to research and teach but also institutional autonomy and freedom of expression. While it doesn’t directly assess the wisdom of specific protests, it underscores the importance of maintaining environments where such protests can occur.
Academic freedom isn’t sustained through university proclamations but through active practice. Each generation must decide whether universities remain places where authority can genuinely be questioned. The events at NLSIU and NALSAR are significant not because law students have discovered protest, but because of where and against whom this resistance has arisen: within institutions known for professionalization and against authorities like the BCI and the CJI.
These students may still pursue careers in corporate law, yet they have shown that professional success does not necessitate institutional deference. The irony lies in the controversy’s central figure, CJI Surya Kant, who expressed concern at a GNLU convocation about students being “hijacked” by corporate firms. Despite the judiciary’s call for more graduates to join the Bar and Bench, NLUs have produced students ready to challenge the very institutions they are entering.
Importantly, when the BCI Chairman sought action against NALSAR students, the Chief Justice defended their right to protest. This is crucial, as a constitutional culture thrives not just when students question authority, but when authority tolerates such questioning. This episode’s lasting lesson may well be the value of this tolerance.
NLSIU’s graduating students have lost a convocation that can never be reclaimed. Yet, this graduating class may be remembered for something other batches with perfectly conducted ceremonies will not: an empty stage that became a focal point for discussing the purpose of legal education. While the ceremony is lost, the capacity to dissent need not be. The institutions have long asked NLUs to produce more than corporate-ready graduates. Perhaps they have finally received what they asked for.
Huzaifa Shaikh is a Doctoral Scholar at the University of Massachusetts (US) and an alumnus of NALSAR.
