Manan Kumar Mishra, chairman of the Bar Council of India (BCI), became the centre of a controversy on Thursday after the statutory regulator initially directed State Bar Councils not to enrol any 2026 law graduate from Hyderabad-based NALSAR University of Law as an advocate. The order followed a campaign by some students opposing the invitation of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to the university's convocation.Hours later, Mishra withdrew the communication and said the BCI had reconsidered its earlier direction. In a fresh letter issued late Thursday, he said the council had “thoroughly discussed and deliberated” on his earlier communication and had decided to modify its direction.Who is Manan Kumar Mishra?Mishra is the chairman of the Bar Council of India, the statutory body responsible for regulating legal education and the legal profession.Beyond his legal career, Mishra has also been active in politics. He contested the 2010 Bihar Assembly election on a Congress ticket before later joining the BJP. In 2024, the BJP nominated him to the Rajya Sabha from Bihar, where he was elected unopposed.His actions in the NALSAR matter drew criticism after his initial communication sought to prevent the 2026 graduating batch from being enrolled by State Bar Councils until further orders.What did the BCI's first order say?In his initial letter to NALSAR's vice-chancellor and State Bar Council secretaries, Mishra sought a “factual report” identifying those who were allegedly instrumental in “intimidation of a constitutional functionary” by initiating, organising or mobilising a campaign against the CJI's participation in the convocation.The BCI directed that, until further orders, no student from NALSAR's 2026 graduating batch would be enrolled as an advocate by any State Bar Council. Mishra said a final decision would be taken on August 19 after receiving the vice-chancellor's report.The council also asked NALSAR to distinguish between students who merely signed or supported representations, those who organised or coordinated the campaign, and those who proposed or mobilised an actual boycott, obstruction or disruption.Mishra had also clarified that the BCI was not, at that stage, declaring anyone ineligible for enrolment under Section 24A of the Advocates Act merely because they had participated in the representation or campaign.Why did Mishra withdraw the communication?In his revised communication issued on Thursday evening, Mishra said the BCI's latest assessment indicated that the vast majority of NALSAR's 2026 graduating students were innocent and “were not inclined to take part in the move of disrespect”.At the same time, he said information from what he described as reliable sources suggested that “a handful of teachers and outsiders were instrumental in instigating innocent students”.The BCI will now wait for NALSAR's inquiry report, according to Mishra's fresh letter, which he also posted on his X handle.What triggered the NALSAR controversy?The dispute began after reports that a section of NALSAR students had asked the university to reconsider inviting CJI Surya Kant to its upcoming convocation.The students reportedly objected to remarks made by the CJI during a hearing concerning alleged police excesses against student protesters during a march to Parliament on July 20. The petitioner had sought to have the CJI-led bench examine video footage of the police action. The CJI declined the request, saying he did not have time to watch the videos.The campaign against the invitation subsequently prompted the BCI to seek an inquiry and issue its initial enrolment direction.SCBA president criticises BCI orderSupreme Court Bar Association president Vikas Singh strongly criticised Mishra's initial communication, describing the decision to halt enrolment of NALSAR law graduates as “arbitrary”.Singh said the move was illegal, disproportionate and fundamentally unsustainable. However, he also made clear that he did not support the section of students who opposed the invitation to the CJI.After Dharmendra Pradhan, Manan isteefa do?Leaders of the CJP, including founder Abhijeet Dipke and Saurabh Das, also criticised Mishra on social media following the BCI's initial order.Das questioned the proposed action against students for expressing dissent and accused the BCI chairman of referring to them as “anti-national forces”. He also questioned Mishra's tenure as chairman and alleged that the BCI spent nearly ₹14 crore on meetings and conferences in one year.Dipke separately questioned whether Mishra's resignation should be demanded, writing on X, “Time for Manan Mishra isteefa do?”The BCI's subsequent withdrawal of its initial communication has now shifted the immediate focus to NALSAR's inquiry report and the council's further consideration of the matter.
