A college convocation is usually a day of joy, photographs, and celebration. But at India’s premier law school, it has turned into a battleground for constitutional rights. Over 700 students and alumni from the National Law School of India University (NLSIU) in Bengaluru have raised their voices in a massive protest.
They are strongly opposing the presence of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra at their upcoming graduation ceremony. The students are not just protesting; they are demanding accountability and an unconditional apology for actions taken against another top law university.
The Spark: What Happened at NALSAR?
To understand the anger at NLSIU, we have to look at what recently happened at the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR) in Hyderabad. Students at NALSAR had previously objected to CJI Surya Kant attending their own convocation.
In response to this student dissent, the Bar Council of India took a drastic step on August 13. The BCI issued a sudden order halting the enrollment of NALSAR’s entire 2026 graduating batch. In simple words, the regulatory body threatened to stop these students from officially becoming lawyers.
Although the BCI reversed this shocking decision just hours later, the damage was already done. Along with restoring their enrollment rights, the BCI ordered NALSAR authorities to identify the specific students and faculty members who organized the protest.
NLSIU Steps In With Heavy Numbers
Seeing this aggressive move against their peers, the NLSIU community decided to stand in solidarity. A joint statement was quickly drafted and signed by a massive portion of the university. According to the report, the document carries the signatures of 165 graduating students, 409 current students, and 128 alumni.
Their primary demand is clear: The Bar Council of India must issue an unconditional apology to the students and teaching staff of NALSAR. The NLSIU students believe that threatening a student’s future career simply because they voiced an opinion is an unacceptable abuse of power.
Questioning The BCI Chairman’s Power
The protesting law students did not just make emotional arguments; they brought strong legal reasoning to the table. They are questioning whether BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra actually had the legal authority to halt NALSAR’s enrollments all by himself.
The students pointed out that the BCI is a large, democratic statutory body. It is not run by one person. The Council legally consists of top legal figures, including:
- The Attorney General of India
- The Solicitor General of India
- One elected representative from every State Bar Council across the country
The NLSIU statement highlighted a major flaw in the BCI’s paperwork. The first letter that blocked the NALSAR students from enrolling did not mention that it had the approval of the full Council. Only the second letter, which cancelled the ban, claimed to have the Council’s backing. Because of this, the students are demanding that the BCI clearly explain its official rules regarding how the Chairman is allowed to use the organization’s official letterhead.
A “Witch-Hunt” Against Free Speech
The students did not hold back in their criticism of the BCI’s demand to name the NALSAR protesters. Quoting Rabindranath Tagore’s famous poem about living without fear, they described the BCI’s tracking efforts as a pure “witch-hunt.”
They argued that such actions create a dangerous “chilling effect.” In legal terms, a chilling effect happens when people become too scared to exercise their legal rights because they fear severe punishment. The students stated that the BCI is sending a threatening message to citizens across India: if you dare to dissent, your personal life and professional career will be ruined.
Rejecting The “Outsider” Blame Game
When the BCI issued its second letter, it suggested that “innocent” law students were being brainwashed and pushed into protesting by hidden “outsiders.” The NLSIU community rejected this claim completely.
The students felt this wording was insulting, patronizing, and untrue. They made it absolutely clear that their protest is entirely their own choice. They are acting on their own free will, without any pressure from mysterious outside forces. They view the BCI’s language as a manipulative trick designed to isolate and punish specific students and teachers.
Furthermore, the students highlighted a history of biased behavior by Chairman Mishra. They recalled his previous public statements where he labeled students protesting at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar as “anti-social and anti-national forces” who were supposedly controlled by foreign enemies.
What The Law Says
This entire controversy touches upon some of the most fundamental laws in India.
1. Freedom of Speech and Expression
Under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, every citizen has the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. This includes the right to peacefully protest, disagree with authorities, and voice dissent. While this right has reasonable restrictions (like national security or public order), peaceful student activism on a campus generally falls under protected speech.
2. The Advocates Act, 1961
The Bar Council of India gets its power from the Advocates Act, 1961. This law allows the BCI to regulate legal education and set the rules for who can be enrolled as an advocate. However, legal experts argue that this power is meant to check a person’s educational qualifications and professional conduct, not to punish them for exercising their constitutional right to protest. Peaceful dissent is not a crime under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, nor was it under the old Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Why This Matters For You
You might not be a law student, but this story affects the core of Indian democracy. Regulatory bodies like the BCI, Medical Councils, or Engineering Boards hold immense power over people’s careers. If a licensing authority can threaten to destroy a student’s future just because they held a protest, it weakens the democratic fabric of the country.
For many students, especially those from marginalized backgrounds who have fought past barriers of caste, class, and gender, getting a university degree is a massive milestone. As the NLSIU students noted, inviting dignitaries who openly show disdain for student voices turns a day of celebration into a day of humiliation.
The Takeaway: A proper legal education teaches students to fight for justice and ask tough questions. When students use these very skills to hold their own regulators accountable, the system must respond with healthy dialogue, not professional threats.
Story reported by Barandbench. This article is BareLaw’s independent explanation and analysis.
