The Bar Council of India (BCI) has directed all state bar councils not to enrol any 2026 law graduate of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad as an advocate until further orders, amid a row over an alleged campaign concerning Chief Justice of India Surya Kant’s participation in the university’s convocation, according to a BCI communication.The directive was issued by BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, who said the council had taken note of reports and material in the public domain about an organised campaign linked to the CJI’s proposed participation or invitation to the convocation.The BCI has sought an authenticated factual report from NALSAR’s vice-chancellor within three days. The council said the matter will be considered on August 19, after receiving the report.According to the BCI communication, NALSAR has been asked to identify, on the basis of verifiable material, those allegedly involved in initiating, drafting, circulating, coordinating or mobilising the campaign.The university has also been asked to provide details of people who organised meetings, communicated with the media, administered social-media or other groups used for coordination, or proposed or mobilised a boycott, obstruction, disruption or organised non-participation in the convocation or any programme connected with the CJI.The council has sought details of whether any student body, Student Bar Council, Students’ Union or other recognised student organisation was involved in initiating, approving, coordinating or circulating the campaign.NALSAR has also been asked to specify whether any faculty member, research scholar, alumnus or outsider participated in initiating, drafting, coordinating, advising or facilitating the campaign. The university must also provide relevant resolutions, minutes, agendas and other official records of meetings connected with the matter, as well as details of whether permission was sought or granted for any protest or organised activity.BCI says campaign support alone won't mean disqualificationThe BCI has, however, clarified that participation in a representation or campaign by itself would not automatically disqualify a graduate from enrolment.The council said a distinction must be made between those who merely signed or supported a representation and those who organised or coordinated the campaign or sought to mobilise an actual boycott, obstruction or disruption.According to the BCI, completing an applicant’s enrolment while their conduct is under statutory examination could create a “fait accompli” and undermine the inquiry.It has therefore directed that if the BCI specifically communicates the name of an applicant for further statutory consideration, the concerned state bar council should not pass an enrolment order. If an application is already pending, the final decision should remain deferred during the inquiry, as per an ANI report.State bar councils have also been asked to ensure that a person whose name is communicated by the BCI does not circumvent the process by seeking enrolment in another state.The council stressed that such communication at the preliminary stage would not amount to a conclusive finding of misconduct or disqualification. Any final adverse decision, it said, would be taken under the Advocates Act, 1961, applicable rules and principles of natural justice.BCI draws line between criticism and disruptionThe BCI communication acknowledged that legal education allows critical reasoning, debate and analysis of judicial decisions. However, it said there was a distinction between reasoned criticism and conduct which, if established after due examination, could involve intimidation, obstruction, organised disruption or disregard of institutional responsibilities attached to the legal profession.The communication has been sent to NALSAR as well as the secretaries of all state bar councils for necessary compliance. The matter is scheduled to come up before the BCI on August 19 after the university submits its factual report.The BCI’s action follows the controversy over the alleged campaign concerning the CJI’s participation in NALSAR’s convocation. The council is now seeking to establish who initiated and coordinated the campaign and whether any organised effort was made to boycott or disrupt the event.(With inputs from TOI and ANI)
