The Student Bar Council of NALSAR University of Law has expressed solidarity with the graduating Batch of 2026 of the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru, following the cancellation of the NLSIU's convocation after the students protested against the participation of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant over his comments on the students protests.

In a statement of solidarity, the NALSAR Student Bar Council said it was “particularly concerning, and deserves condemnation” that NLSIU students were asked to issue a public letter re-inviting the CJI to their convocation, describing the requirement as a condition that was added subsequently.

The student body said that, based on the circumstances brought to its attention, it was unclear whether the demand for such a public letter originated with the NLSIU administration or the office of the CJI. However, it said that if the request was made by the office of the CJI, it was “incredibly unfortunate”.

We acknowledge the statutory design of NLSIU, where the office of the Chancellor is helmed by the CJI in their ex officio capacity. Convocations are convened by the Chancellor, and degrees are conferred in their name. In this light, students had agreed to the presence of the CJI at their convocation. However, it is particularly concerning, and deserves condemnation, that students were asked to issue a public letter of 're-invitation' to the CJI - a condition added only subsequent to the said agreement. Here, we want to make it clear the actual sequence of events can only be clarified by direct stakeholders in the issue. However, it has been made clear to us that the NLSIU administration had not asked for any such public letter of 're-invitation'. Such a request, when rejected by the students, led to the unfortunate cancellation of the convocation by the administration.

We also want to note that if such request of a 'public letter' was made by the office of the CJI, it is incredibly unfortunate as the office of the CJI apparently preferred creating suitable public discourse in the interest of their office over the interests of the students. We salute the principled stance of the students of the Batch of 2026 when they rejected this request and stood by their earlier act of dissent.

The statement also recalled the support extended by NLSIU students and alumni to NALSAR students when the Bar Council of India threatened not to enrol NASLAR 2026 graduates when they protested against the CJI.

According to the NALSAR Student Bar Council, the subsequent requirement that NLSIU students publicly re-invite the CJI effectively placed the graduating students in a position where they had to choose between attending a significant milestone in their lives and maintaining their previously expressed dissent.

“Such imposition of an onerous burden on the graduating cohort,” the statement said, would have a chilling effect on future acts of dissent and solidarity.

The Council further highlighted the significance of a convocation as a milestone marking years of education, growth and hard work. It noted that students had already made arrangements to attend the ceremony, including arrangements for their families, and termed the loss of the opportunity to celebrate the occasion with them “cruel.”

The statement also acknowledged the statutory position of the Chancellor of NLSIU, noting that the office is held by the CJI in an ex-officio capacity and that convocations are convened by the Chancellor, with degrees conferred in their name. Against this backdrop, the Council said students had initially agreed to the CJI's presence at the convocation.

However, it alleged that the students were subsequently asked to issue a public letter of “re-invitation” to the CJI, a condition which it said was added after the earlier agreement. The Council said that, according to information available to it, the NLSIU administration had not itself asked for such a letter.

The NALSAR statement also referred to observations made by the CJI condemning the BCI's action against NALSAR students and recognising students' right to peacefully raise their voices.

Against this background, the Council said the subsequent requirement of a public statement inviting the CJI, and its linkage to the holding of the convocation, was a matter of “great concern.”

The NALSAR Student Bar Council said it was not taking a position on the competing versions of events that led to the impasse. At the same time, it criticised what it described as a lack of transparency and care towards the graduating students, observing that alternatives such as postponement of the convocation did not appear to have been explored.

It cannot be emphasised enough that a convocation marks a poignant milestone, recognising years of learning, growth, hard work, and the beginning of a new chapter in a student's life. Snatching this opportunity from students, which would have enabled them to savour this moment with family and friends, is cruel. Students had already made arrangements to attend the convocation, including arrangements for their families.

The Council concluded by reiterating its solidarity with the NLSIU students and particularly the Batch of 2026. It also praised the graduating students for maintaining their position despite what it described as tremendous pressure to withdraw their dissent.

The statement has been endorsed by 111 alumni of NALSAR University of Law, according to the document.

The controversy began after the BCI Chairman, Manan Kumar Mishra, ordered that the enrolment of NALSAR's graduating batch be halted after students objected to CJI Surya Kant's proposed presence at their convocation. The order was later withdrawn following widespread criticism from the legal community, and Manan Kumar Mishra apologised to the law students.

NLSIU students had supported their NALSAR counterparts in this controversy, with more than 700 members of the NLSIU community signing a statement opposing the participation of Mishra and CJI Surya Kant in their convocation. After meeting the students, the CJI reportedly agreed to a process under which the batches voted on whether they would attend a convocation with him present, without protests or disruption. The August 23 vote favoured this arrangement, with students also assured that Mishra would not attend. However, two days later, students were informed that the convocation would additionally require a public statement inviting the CJI. Unable to agree to this new condition, the students saw the convocation cancelled.

Click here to read the statement