Bar Council of India (BCI) chairman Manan Kumar Mishra has apologised for remarks and communications issued during the controversy over protests by students of NALSAR University of Law against the invitation to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant to their convocation.

The apology came after the Supreme Court criticised the BCI’s intervention and NALSAR students demanded that Mishra withdraw his remarks and apologise.

In a letter issued on Independence Day, Mishra acknowledged that his actions had caused “concern and anguish” among students.

He wrote, “If anything connected with the present controversy, any of my words, or letter, has hurt the feelings of our law students, I sincerely regret and apologise for the same.”

The apology is Mishra’s fourth communication since August 13, when he issued a series of directions concerning students who had opposed CJI Kant’s presence at the NALSAR convocation. His initial order had directed state bar councils not to enrol the university’s graduating batch until further notice. The directive was subsequently withdrawn.

Mishra’s latest letter followed a demand from NALSAR’s Student Bar Council (SBC), which had objected to what it described as objectionable language used in his earlier communications. The students had particularly criticised references to “groupism” and “dirty politics” and allegations concerning the role of faculty members in the protests.

“The relationship between the judiciary, the bar, universities and law students is much deeper and more enduring than any temporary controversy,” Mishra wrote in the letter dated August 15.

He also said that an “expression of regret is not a matter of prestige or ego”. It is “simply an acknowledgment that the feelings and concerns of our students matter”.

However, Mishra’s latest communication did not specifically refer to NALSAR, CJI Kant, the withdrawn enrolment directive or his earlier references to “groupism”, “dirty politics” and the alleged involvement of faculty and alumni.

The controversy has meanwhile spread beyond NALSAR. Graduating students, current students and alumni of the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru, have also condemned Mishra’s actions and sought an unconditional apology for what they described as an attempt to infringe the fundamental right to free speech and expression of NALSAR students and faculty.

The NLSIU students and alumni also sought clarity from the BCI regarding the use of its official letterhead for Mishra’s communications and said he should make amends before attending convocations at the institution.

Mishra, however, cautioned against allowing the dispute to acquire a wider political dimension. In his latest letter, he said the issue “should not be allowed to acquire a political or extraneous colour through outside influence”. At the same time, he maintained that students’ concerns “deserve to be heard with patience, sensitivity and respect”.

The dispute began after NALSAR students protested against CJI Kant’s proposed appearance at their convocation, citing his earlier “cockroaches” remark and subsequent courtroom comments.

In his first communication to NALSAR Vice-Chancellor Professor Srikrishna Deva Rao, Mishra had described the campaign as a serious matter and sought details of students involved in initiating, organising, drafting, circulating, coordinating or mobilising opposition to the CJI’s participation.

His letter had also criticised members of the university faculty, stating, “This is a very serious matter. The teachers, instead of involving themselves in their teaching job, are doing nasty politics on the campus.”

The BCI had sought copies of representations or memoranda submitted by students, the complete list of signatories and details relating to social media activity surrounding the campaign.

NALSAR’s SBC subsequently argued that the demand to identify students, faculty members, alumni, research scholars and others involved in the campaign raised serious concerns over privacy and freedom of expression. It said Mishra was not only heading a statutory regulator but was also a sitting Rajya Sabha member of the ruling party who had described himself as a supporter of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The students argued that the attempt to identify those behind the dissent resembled a political exercise in which disagreement was portrayed as conspiracy and peaceful protest as external manipulation.

The Supreme Court intervened in the controversy on August 14, with a bench headed by CJI Kant strongly questioning the BCI’s actions. “BCI is unnecessarily taking action,” Kant had said, adding that if students had a cause to protest, “they have the right to protest”. He described the BCI’s intervention as “totally uncalled for” and said the matter concerned dialogue between the students and himself.

The court also restrained the BCI and state bar councils from pursuing punitive or criminal action against students and faculty of national law universities or other universities in connection with the matter.

The developments had triggered calls for Mishra’s resignation from sections of the legal fraternity and the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), which has been associated with protests over recruitment examination irregularities. CJP spokesperson Saurav Das had written on X, “Moral responsibility commands that Manan Kumar Mishra resigns. Cockroaches both inside and outside courts should ensure this happens.”

Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan also criticised Mishra on X, saying he “feels that he can act like a dictator, because he has the system under his control”.