BCI hastily withdraws ban on enrolment of NALSAR graduating batch

Nearly 450 graduating students had been up in arms over the past few days against the invitation sent to the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to be the chief guest at the law school’s annual  convocation ceremony.

In view of what it perceived to be a flagrant violation of the Supreme Court 2003 Ex-Capt Harish Uppal v Union of India ruling that “legal professionals and those entering the field must maintain a respectful attitude towards courts and avoid strikes and boycotts which tarnish the image of the profession,  the regulatory body had issued a directive  to all state Bar Councils not to enrol any of the 450 outgoing students pending an investigation into the matter.

In a swift move to quell the agitation, the BCI in an unusual  intervention  issued a 6 page notification Thursday afternoon categorically barring the 2026 passouts from enrolment pending an inquiry into “the organised campaign to oppose the CJI’s participation in the function.

This followed an email sent to the NALSAR Vice Chancellor by the 450-strong batch requesting that the invitation to the CJI be withdrawn in the backdrop of the his refusal to grant an early hearing to a petition demanding a probe into the police excesses unleashed against those participating in the recent Sansad Chalo march organised by the Cockroach Janata Party last month in Delhi. 

In a terse directive issued by the BCI Chairman and BJP MP Manan Kumar Mishra  , the NALSAR VC was given a three day deadline to submit a detailed report identifying the students, the student leaders and faculty members behind the campaign. “Till further orders, no student of NALSAR University of Law who has obtained the Law degree in the year 2026 shall be enrolled by any state Bar council as an advocate,” the directive stated.

It also warned that completion of ongoing enrolments during the course of the active statutory examination of student conduct would create “a fait accompli, rendering the regulatory process ineffective.

For individual students whose names are highlighted in the upcoming inquiry, any pending enrolment applications will remain deferred.” A final decision on the suspension of enrolments would be taken by the BCI after reviewing the university’s submissions on August 19, 2026. 

The directive created an uproar among both students and faculty at India’s third ranked law school. Describing the BCI action as illogical, a student on condition of anonymity said, “Moreover, in Daeyoung Jung v. Bar Council of India, the Court considered BCI’s rule-making power under Section 49(1)(ag) and held that the provision couldn’t be used to create an additional disqualification for enrolment that Parliament itself hadn’t enacted.

The Court specifically reasoned that “class or category of persons entitled to be enrolled” cannot simply be converted into a power to disentitle an otherwise eligible class from entering the profession.”

Seeing the potential  backlash that the directive could unleash, late evening hectic parleys between BCI office bearers and the NALSAR VC and his team resulted in the BCI issuing a fresh modified directive which categorically stated that members were “of the unanimous view that as per the latest report, vast majority of students of NALSAR (2026 pass out students) are innocent … Accordingly, all the students will be entitled to get enrolled with the State Bar Councils of their choice.”

Citing reliable sources, the BCI’s modified directive alleged that a handful of teachers and outsiders were instrumental in instigating innocent students. The Council will wait for the VC’s inquiry report and further action will be taken after receipt of the report. “No student shall be made to suffer without any fault on his part,” it concludes.