The Crossbill Team
The Supreme Court on Friday (August 14) stepped into the dispute between the Bar Council of India (BCI) and students of NALSAR University of Law, making it clear that lawful student protests cannot be curtailed by professional regulatory bodies.
The court restrained the BCI and state bar councils from initiating punitive or criminal proceedings against students or faculty of national law universities and other universities in connection with the controversy.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, also directed the BCI to respond to a petition challenging its intervention in the matter. The Council has been given two weeks to file its counter-affidavit, Hindustan Times reported.
The proceedings came shortly after BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra announced that the Council had decided to close its proceedings against the 2026 graduating batch of NALSAR, Hyderabad. The BCI had initially frozen their enrolment before withdrawing that decision, while continuing an inquiry into students allegedly involved in a campaign opposing CJI Kant being invited as the chief guest at their convocation.
The issue was brought before the Supreme Court by senior advocate K Parameshwar, who questioned the BCI’s authority to intervene in matters concerning student protests within a university. He argued that the Council’s action infringed the students’ fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
“The BCI is unnecessarily taking action in this matter. If students have a cause or a reason to protest, they have a right to protest. Nobody can stop them, and we will not allow this,” said the CJI after senior advocate K Parameshwar mentioned the matter before the bench, reported HT.
Parameshwar argued that the BCI had “no business” dealing with events inside a university and said that withdrawing its earlier order freezing enrolment did not eliminate the underlying issue.
“It spells a lot about the functioning of the BCI,” Parameshwar said.
The CJI agreed with the submission and expressed strong disapproval of the Council’s intervention.
“We are with you. This is absolutely uncalled for. They had no business to interfere. The students have written a letter to me, and it is between me and the students. There is a dialogue between us.”
Emphasising the importance of dissent and peaceful protest on campuses, Justice Kant referred to his own student days.
“In my younger days, I was also actively involved in student activities. They have a right to protest. Who can stop them? So long as they are lawfully and peacefully protesting, they have a right to raise their voice,” he said.
The Chief Justice further stressed that the right to express an opinion did not depend on whether the view being expressed was correct.
At another point, the CJI said: “We have to be large-hearted. They should be allowed to speak. Even if they are wrong, they have a right to speak.”
The bench also questioned the manner in which the BCI had arrived at its decision. Justice Bagchi asked whether the Council had actually held a meeting before adopting the resolution concerning the NALSAR students.
“You will have to tell us about this in your reply,” the judge told advocate Radhika Gautam, who appeared for the BCI.
Parameshwar told the court that a BCI member from Kerala had informed him that no meeting of the Council had been held before the decision was taken, raising questions about the validity of the action.
The Supreme Court also directed that the students’ enrolment should not be obstructed and urged them to complete the process.
“You tell all students they should enroll as soon as possible and take the SCBA membership,” the CJI told the senior counsel.
In its interim order, the bench directed that, pending further proceedings, “no punitive or criminal action shall be taken against students or faculty of any national law universities or other universities.”
The court’s intervention comes as the controversy over the NALSAR students’ protest raises wider questions about the limits of regulatory bodies’ authority over university campuses and the protection of students’ right to peaceful dissent.
The court restrained the BCI and state bar councils from initiating punitive or criminal proceedings against students or faculty of national law universities and other universities in connection with the controversy.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, also directed the BCI to respond to a petition challenging its intervention in the matter. The Council has been given two weeks to file its counter-affidavit, Hindustan Times reported.
The proceedings came shortly after BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra announced that the Council had decided to close its proceedings against the 2026 graduating batch of NALSAR, Hyderabad. The BCI had initially frozen their enrolment before withdrawing that decision, while continuing an inquiry into students allegedly involved in a campaign opposing CJI Kant being invited as the chief guest at their convocation.
The issue was brought before the Supreme Court by senior advocate K Parameshwar, who questioned the BCI’s authority to intervene in matters concerning student protests within a university. He argued that the Council’s action infringed the students’ fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
“The BCI is unnecessarily taking action in this matter. If students have a cause or a reason to protest, they have a right to protest. Nobody can stop them, and we will not allow this,” said the CJI after senior advocate K Parameshwar mentioned the matter before the bench, reported HT.
Parameshwar argued that the BCI had “no business” dealing with events inside a university and said that withdrawing its earlier order freezing enrolment did not eliminate the underlying issue.
“It spells a lot about the functioning of the BCI,” Parameshwar said.
The CJI agreed with the submission and expressed strong disapproval of the Council’s intervention.
“We are with you. This is absolutely uncalled for. They had no business to interfere. The students have written a letter to me, and it is between me and the students. There is a dialogue between us.”
Emphasising the importance of dissent and peaceful protest on campuses, Justice Kant referred to his own student days.
“In my younger days, I was also actively involved in student activities. They have a right to protest. Who can stop them? So long as they are lawfully and peacefully protesting, they have a right to raise their voice,” he said.
The Chief Justice further stressed that the right to express an opinion did not depend on whether the view being expressed was correct.
At another point, the CJI said: “We have to be large-hearted. They should be allowed to speak. Even if they are wrong, they have a right to speak.”
The bench also questioned the manner in which the BCI had arrived at its decision. Justice Bagchi asked whether the Council had actually held a meeting before adopting the resolution concerning the NALSAR students.
“You will have to tell us about this in your reply,” the judge told advocate Radhika Gautam, who appeared for the BCI.
Parameshwar told the court that a BCI member from Kerala had informed him that no meeting of the Council had been held before the decision was taken, raising questions about the validity of the action.
The Supreme Court also directed that the students’ enrolment should not be obstructed and urged them to complete the process.
“You tell all students they should enroll as soon as possible and take the SCBA membership,” the CJI told the senior counsel.
In its interim order, the bench directed that, pending further proceedings, “no punitive or criminal action shall be taken against students or faculty of any national law universities or other universities.”
The court’s intervention comes as the controversy over the NALSAR students’ protest raises wider questions about the limits of regulatory bodies’ authority over university campuses and the protection of students’ right to peaceful dissent.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment