India
BCI apology caps NALSAR enrolment ban row
Will the apology ease doubts about how far the regulator can punish student protests?
Will the apology ease doubts about how far the regulator can punish student protests?
BCI apology caps the ban row after a campus protest over a invite escalated into a threat to block an entire graduating batch from joining the legal profession. The episode exposed the limits of regulatory power when it meets student speech and institutional dissent, and the backlash, court criticism and rollback left the council under pressure to justify its response.
After the backlash and judicial criticism, Manan Kumar Mishra apologised to law students. He said students must remain free to express their views and regretted any words or communication that may have hurt their feelings. The apology marked the final step in the dispute after the ban was withdrawn.
The strongly criticised the withdrawn BCI circular and questioned the regulator's authority to interfere in the matter. The bench said students had a right to protest and made clear that no punitive action should be taken against NALSAR students or faculty over the episode. The court's intervention turned the row into a broader test of and student speech.
Within hours, the Bar Council of India reversed the enrolment freeze. The revised communication said all 2026 NALSAR graduates could enrol with the , and that no further action was required. The ended the immediate threat to the batch's entry into the profession.
The directive triggered immediate criticism from students, lawyers, and commentators, who described the move as excessive and unfair to students who had not taken part in the protest. Coverage noted that the was aimed at the whole graduating batch rather than any identified individuals. The backlash quickly raised questions about how far the BCI could go in response to .
chairman Manan Kumar Mishra directed all not to any member of NALSAR's 2026 graduating batch as an advocate until further orders. The order followed reports of an organised campaign against the Chief Justice's participation in the convocation. It turned a campus protest into an extraordinary professional penalty affecting an entire batch.
Students at protested against the invitation to as chief guest for the . The dispute began as a campus protest over student speech and the choice of guest for the ceremony. It soon drew wider attention because the protest was linked to the university's graduating class and their path to enrolment as .