Click the Play button to listen to article

Two NALSAR University of Law alumni have approached the Supreme Court seeking an enquiry into the manner in which Bar Council of India Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra issued letters directing the university to identify students involved in a campaign against the invitation to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to its convocation, and barring enrolment of students belonging to the 2026 graduating batch of the university.

The BCI Chairman himself had later withdrawn the orders. The petitioners ask if there was a proper Council meeting authorising the BCI Chairman to issue the directions.

The petition contends that participation in a student campaign is not one of the grounds under the Advocates Act, 1961 to deny enrolment.

“the Bar Council of India has acted ultra vires the Advocates Act, 1961 by attempting to manufacture an extra-statutory disqualification beyond the strict confines of Section 24A, which lays down the exhaustive list of grounds for disqualification. Through the Impugned Letters, the Bar Council of India is effectively manufacturing another ground for disqualification - participation in a student campaign and then the pendency of a university level inquiry”, the plea states.

The petition also contends that the students' internal representation concerning the choice of dignitary for the convocation was protected speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It contends that the impugned letters create a “chilling effect” on freedom of speech and expression of the students.

“A representation to institutional authorities expressing disagreement with, or seeking reconsideration of, an invitation extended to a constitutional functionary constitutes protected speech under Article 19(1)(a). Directions to identify authors/organisers of such a representation, coupled with the threat of Bar Council "statutory consideration" of their conduct, operates as a chilling effect, deterring future students and faculty from expressing dissent through lawful, peaceful, and constitutionally sanctioned means”, it contends.

The plea was mentioned by Senior Advocate K Parameshwar before a bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana today, and the court issued notice, directing that no punitive action be taken against NALSAR students or faculty by the BCI or any Bar Council in connection with the incidents referred to in the letters.

Notably, hours after issuance of the first letter yesterday, a second letter was issued, and BCI withdrew the Chairman's direction to bar enrolment of NALSAR's 2026 graduates.

The first letter directed NALSAR to furnish within three days a report identifying persons “instrumental in initiating, organising, or mobilising” the campaign concerning the participation of the CJI at the convocation. It also sought the complete list of student signatories and related minutes or resolutions.

The first letter also directed all State Bar Councils to stop the enrolment of NALSAR's 2026-passed-out students until further orders. The second letter permitted their enrolment, stating that the vast majority of students were innocent. However, it retained the direction to submit a report identifying persons involved and stated that further action would follow receipt of the Vice-Chancellor's report.

Subsequently, the entire order was withdrawn, including the direction to the university to identify the students involved.

The plea argues that the BCI has no statutory authority to conduct an enquiry into the internal affairs of NALSAR or to regulate students' conduct before their enrolment as advocates.

It states that under Section 6 of the Advocates Act, 1961, State Bar Councils have the power to admit persons as advocates on their rolls, and BCI has no jurisdiction over enrolment of advocates.

“Notably, the Advocates Act does not empower the Bar Council of India to decide on matters of admitting of persons as advocates on the rolls of State Bar Councils. The only limited role of the Bar Council of India is when the State Bar Council has taken a decision to refuse enrollment and thereafter refers the case to the Bar Council of India”, the plea points out.

It also relies on Section 24A, which sets out three grounds for disqualification from enrolment – conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude, conviction under the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, and dismissal or removal from State employment or office on a charge involving moral turpitude. The petition contends that participation in a student campaign or the pendency of a university enquiry is not one of those grounds.

The petition further argues that Section 7 of the Advocates Act, which sets out the BCI's functions, does not confer power to admit persons as advocates on State Bar Council rolls. It contends that the BCI's supervisory powers and powers relating to legal education cannot be used to direct a university to conduct an enquiry into students' expression of views.

“no provision of the Advocates Act 1961 or the Bar Council of India's Rules of Legal Education permit the Bar Council of India to issue the Impugned Letters. The supervisory jurisdiction of the Bar Council of India under the Advocates Act 1961 only extends to “advocates” and to prescribing standards of legal education. This does not extend to regulating students' associational or expressive conduct prior to enrolment, nor to directing universities to “inquire” into students' conduct”, the plea states.

The plea has sought quashing of both BCI letters, an enquiry into how the letters came to be issued, and a direction restraining the BCI from taking disciplinary, civil or criminal action against NALSAR students or faculty in connection with the matter.

During the hearing today, CJI Surya Kant strongly disapproved of the BCI's intervention, remarking that students have a right to peacefully protest.

The petition has been filed through Advocate on Record Rupali Francesca Samuel.

Case no. – Diary No. - 49499/2026

Case Title – Mihira Sood and anr. v. Bar Council of India and ors.

Tags: