The Bar Council of India has closed proceedings altogether against the 2026‑passed batch of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra announced on social media, marking the third and final development in a controversy that unfolded over a single day on 13 August 2026.
The episode began with a letter bearing reference No. BCI:D:5449/2026, in which the Council directed that no State Bar Council enrol any 2026‑passed NALSAR student as an advocate till further orders, citing an organised campaign at the university relating to the proposed participation of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant, Chief Justice of India, at its Convocation. The correspondence asked the Vice‑Chancellor to furnish, within three days, an authenticated report identifying persons instrumental in organising or mobilising the campaign, and alleged, citing unnamed sources, that groupism among academic staff had misled and incited students.
Hours later, a second letter, reference No. BCI:D:5450/2026, modified the earlier directive. It recorded that the Council’s members were of the view that most of NALSAR’s 2026 batch were innocent and not inclined to take part in the alleged act of disrespect, and held that all students would be entitled to enrol with State Bar Councils of their choice, while still requiring the Vice‑Chancellor to submit an inquiry report on the persons involved.
Final closure of proceedings
In a post on social media, Chairman Mishra said that, after considering representations and reactions of senior advocates, learned members of the Bar, law students and public‑spirited citizens, and being satisfied that the 2026 batch had no role in any disturbance, the Council decided to close the proceedings altogether, stating that “the Bar Council of India has decided to close the proceedings altogether. No further action is required.”
The decision was welcomed widely.
Mishra wished the graduates the very best for their careers, adding a word of wisdom that the day they enrol, they become defenders of legal institutions in which the profession takes great pride, and urged them to voice their opinions freely but with respect and institutional decorum.
Related: Jammu and Kashmir Ladakh High Court Delivers Verdict
He noted that the highest judicial office is the collective honour of the profession, and that while dissent is welcome in a democracy, public ridicule of constitutional institutions is often counterproductive. He indicated that an official communication from the Bar Council would follow.
The convocation had originally been scheduled to feature Justice Surya Kant delivering the chief guest address, a plan that sparked heated debate on campus. Some faculty members argued that the chief justice’s presence would highlight the university’s standing, while others feared it could be interpreted as politicising the ceremony.
Student leaders organized a peaceful forum to discuss the issue, emphasizing that their concerns centred on academic freedom rather than personal affront. The forum concluded with a consensus that any protest should remain non‑violent and within the bounds of law.
Legal commentators observed that the Council’s swift reversal signalled a desire to avoid prolonged litigation and preserve the reputation of one of India’s premier law schools. They suggested that the episode may prompt other institutions to review internal communication channels to prevent similar misunderstandings.
Looking ahead, the Bar Council has promised to issue clearer guidelines on enrolment eligibility during periods of campus unrest, aiming to balance institutional authority with individual rights.