The Crossbill Team
The student body at NALSAR University of Law has hit back at the Bar Council of India (BCI) over its now-revoked decision to block the enrolment of the university’s 2026 graduating batch, calling for an apology from BCI chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra over what it described as “objectionable comments” directed at students and faculty.
The Student Bar Council, the elected representative body of NALSAR students, issued its response late Friday (August 14), days after the BCI intervened following a campaign by students opposing the invitation of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as chief guest at the university’s convocation.
Around 450 of NALSAR’s roughly 1,400 students had participated in the campaign. On Thursday, the BCI instructed state bar councils not to enrol any member of the 2026 graduating batch from NALSAR as an advocate until further orders. The directive was subsequently withdrawn by Mishra following criticism.
While acknowledging the withdrawal, the Student Bar Council said it nevertheless considered it necessary to put its objections on record.
“We acknowledge the rescission of the (BCI) letters and the extinguishment of the cause of action. However, even then, it is important for us to record our condemnation of this event at four levels: statutory, constitutional, first principles, and in light of the wider social realities of repression and unfreedom,” it states.
The students argued that disagreement with constitutional authorities could not be treated as incompatible with constitutional values and defended the right of university communities to question those in positions of authority.
“We reject the notion that constitutional fidelity requires silence… No institution, including the Supreme Court and the CJI, are beyond legitimate scrutiny in a constitutional democracy, and judicial accountability is not the antithesis of judicial independence but one of its essential safeguards. Universities exist to cultivate these values, to nurture independent thought, critical inquiry, and the courage to question authority. A university that cannot accommodate dissent ceases to be a university; a legal profession that fears criticism ceases to serve the Constitution,” it reads.
The Student Bar Council also questioned whether the BCI had acted within the scope of its statutory responsibilities. It objected particularly to the council’s request for details of individuals allegedly involved in the campaign.
“The letter seeks to surveil the identities of virtually everyone involved in the alleged campaign, including its initiators, drafters, organisers, coordinators, mobilisers, spokespersons, social-media administrators, office-bearers of student bodies, faculty, research scholars, alumni, and external participants… asking for such details is an intrusive violation of privacy, considering that it involves revealing the identities of students, who may face potential long-term consequences,” it reads.
The students also criticised the language used in the BCI communications, particularly references to “groupism” and “dirty politics” at the university and allegations that faculty members were “misleading, misguiding and instigating students.”
“These allegations are unprofessional, unfounded, and without any substance. Making such claims against members of the University family for mere peaceful expression of legitimate dissent is uncalled for and reeks of malice”.
The council further argued that the BCI’s demands conflicted with students’ fundamental rights, stating that they were in violation of “Article 19(1)(a) which explicitly states that all citizens will have the right to freedom of speech and expression”.
The statement concluded by framing the dispute as a wider question about academic freedom and the space available for dissent within institutions.
“NALSAR is facing a defining choice: whether to acquiesce in the shrinking of democratic space or to affirm that universities are not extensions of the state, that regulators are not instruments for policing political opinion, and that constitutional freedoms do not become expendable when they are inconvenient. We owe that commitment not only to ourselves, but to all those who lack the privilege and visibility that we possess as part of an elite institution. The question is not whether dissent is comfortable; it is whether it will remain possible.”
The controversy has now moved beyond the withdrawn enrolment directive, with the students demanding accountability for the BCI’s initial intervention and an apology from its chairperson.
The Student Bar Council, the elected representative body of NALSAR students, issued its response late Friday (August 14), days after the BCI intervened following a campaign by students opposing the invitation of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as chief guest at the university’s convocation.
Around 450 of NALSAR’s roughly 1,400 students had participated in the campaign. On Thursday, the BCI instructed state bar councils not to enrol any member of the 2026 graduating batch from NALSAR as an advocate until further orders. The directive was subsequently withdrawn by Mishra following criticism.
While acknowledging the withdrawal, the Student Bar Council said it nevertheless considered it necessary to put its objections on record.
“We acknowledge the rescission of the (BCI) letters and the extinguishment of the cause of action. However, even then, it is important for us to record our condemnation of this event at four levels: statutory, constitutional, first principles, and in light of the wider social realities of repression and unfreedom,” it states.
The students argued that disagreement with constitutional authorities could not be treated as incompatible with constitutional values and defended the right of university communities to question those in positions of authority.
“We reject the notion that constitutional fidelity requires silence… No institution, including the Supreme Court and the CJI, are beyond legitimate scrutiny in a constitutional democracy, and judicial accountability is not the antithesis of judicial independence but one of its essential safeguards. Universities exist to cultivate these values, to nurture independent thought, critical inquiry, and the courage to question authority. A university that cannot accommodate dissent ceases to be a university; a legal profession that fears criticism ceases to serve the Constitution,” it reads.
The Student Bar Council also questioned whether the BCI had acted within the scope of its statutory responsibilities. It objected particularly to the council’s request for details of individuals allegedly involved in the campaign.
“The letter seeks to surveil the identities of virtually everyone involved in the alleged campaign, including its initiators, drafters, organisers, coordinators, mobilisers, spokespersons, social-media administrators, office-bearers of student bodies, faculty, research scholars, alumni, and external participants… asking for such details is an intrusive violation of privacy, considering that it involves revealing the identities of students, who may face potential long-term consequences,” it reads.
The students also criticised the language used in the BCI communications, particularly references to “groupism” and “dirty politics” at the university and allegations that faculty members were “misleading, misguiding and instigating students.”
“These allegations are unprofessional, unfounded, and without any substance. Making such claims against members of the University family for mere peaceful expression of legitimate dissent is uncalled for and reeks of malice”.
The council further argued that the BCI’s demands conflicted with students’ fundamental rights, stating that they were in violation of “Article 19(1)(a) which explicitly states that all citizens will have the right to freedom of speech and expression”.
The statement concluded by framing the dispute as a wider question about academic freedom and the space available for dissent within institutions.
“NALSAR is facing a defining choice: whether to acquiesce in the shrinking of democratic space or to affirm that universities are not extensions of the state, that regulators are not instruments for policing political opinion, and that constitutional freedoms do not become expendable when they are inconvenient. We owe that commitment not only to ourselves, but to all those who lack the privilege and visibility that we possess as part of an elite institution. The question is not whether dissent is comfortable; it is whether it will remain possible.”
The controversy has now moved beyond the withdrawn enrolment directive, with the students demanding accountability for the BCI’s initial intervention and an apology from its chairperson.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment