NALSAR Students Demand Apology From BCI Chairman Over Enrolment Directive Row

Students at NALSAR University of Law in Hyderabad on Saturday demanded an apology from Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra over his now-withdrawn letters directing State Bar Councils not to enrol the university's 2026 graduates.

The issue began after some students sent an email to Vice Chancellor Prof. Srikrishna Deva Rao expressing concern over the Supreme Court Bench led by the Chief Justice of India refusing an urgent listing of a plea. The plea concerned alleged police action against protesters during the peaceful 'Chalo Sansad' demonstration at Jantar Mantar on July 20. Following a row over inviting the Chief Justice of India as the chief guest for the convocation, the BCI chairman issued letters seeking a report from the Vice Chancellor and directing State Bar Councils against enrolling the 2026 batch.

In a statement, the NALSAR Student Bar Council condemned the BCI Chairman for using highly objectionable language in letters addressed to Prof. Rao, including allegations of groupism, dirty politics, and the role of faculty in misleading, misguiding, and instigating students.

Terming the allegations unprofessional, unfounded, and without substance, the students said making such claims against members of the university community for expressing peaceful and legitimate dissent was uncalled for and malicious.

The students noted that a modified letter from the BCI pointed to the role of teachers and outsiders in instigating students. They stated that by searching for a faculty member, alumnus, research scholar, or outsider who supposedly orchestrated the campaign, the BCI denied students ownership of their own political views and reflected a narrative where dissent is dismissed as external manipulation rather than engaged with on its merits.

The students also pointed out that under the Advocates Act of 1961, directing State Bar Councils to restrict the enrolment of students from the NALSAR batch of 2026 does not align with the statutory functions of the BCI. Stating that the chairperson's actions were unbecoming of a statutory regulatory body, the students noted that even a communication on X from the BCI chairperson did not withdraw the allegations, and they maintained their demand for an apology.