New Delhi: Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra has apologised to law students following a growing controversy over the NALSAR University of Law convocation and the invitation extended to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as the chief guest.
Mishra issued the apology on August 15, expressing regret if his recent words or communications had caused hurt among law students. His statement came after widespread criticism of the BCI’s handling of the dispute and demands from students and alumni for an apology.
What Triggered the NALSAR Controversy?
The dispute began after a section of students at Hyderabad’s NALSAR University of Law objected to CJI Surya Kant being invited as the chief guest for their 2026 convocation.
Students questioned the choice of the Chief Justice, citing concerns over remarks and judicial developments that they believed warranted reconsideration of the invitation. Hundreds of students reportedly wrote to the university seeking a review of the decision.
The student protest subsequently escalated into a confrontation involving the BCI, which regulates the legal profession in India.
BCI Move Against NALSAR Graduates Sparks Backlash
The BCI had directed State Bar Councils not to enrol NALSAR’s 2026 graduating batch as advocates, a move that triggered strong criticism from students, legal professionals and sections of the legal community.
The decision was subsequently withdrawn, with the BCI allowing the graduates’ enrolment while maintaining that an inquiry into the matter would continue. The episode also attracted attention from the Supreme Court.
Critics argued that students should not face consequences for expressing their views about a convocation guest.
Manan Kumar Mishra Says Apology Is Not About Ego
In his Independence Day message, Mishra sought to ease tensions with law students across the country.
He said that if anything connected with the controversy, including his words or letters, had hurt students, he “sincerely regret[s] and apologise[s].” He also emphasised that expressing regret should not be viewed as a matter of personal prestige or ego.
Mishra further said that students should be free to make their own decisions regarding participation in convocation ceremonies and should neither be compelled to attend nor pressured to stay away.
Students Had Demanded an Unconditional Apology
The apology followed strong demands from students and alumni of the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru, who had criticised the BCI’s earlier action against NALSAR graduates.
More than 700 students and alumni were reported to have raised concerns over the BCI’s handling of the matter. They also questioned the presence of Mishra and CJI Surya Kant at an upcoming NLSIU convocation.
The NLSIU community had sought an unconditional apology to the NALSAR student and faculty community and questioned whether the BCI chairman had the authority to take such action against the graduating batch.
CJI Surya Kant’s Role in the Dispute
The controversy surrounding the convocation invitation was separate from the BCI’s subsequent action against the students, but the two issues became closely linked.
Students had objected to CJI Surya Kant’s proposed role as chief guest, while the BCI viewed the developments surrounding the invitation as serious enough to initiate action concerning the graduates’ enrolment.
The resulting dispute raised wider questions about student dissent, academic freedom and the limits of regulatory authority within legal education.
BCI Attempts to Defuse Tensions
Mishra’s latest statement appears aimed at reducing tensions between the BCI and India’s law students.
He stressed that the relationship between the judiciary, the legal profession, universities and students is deeper and more enduring than any temporary controversy. He also supported students’ right to make their own decisions and encouraged dialogue rather than escalation.
The apology marks a significant change in tone following the intense criticism triggered by the BCI’s initial action.
What Happens Next?
The immediate controversy has eased following the withdrawal of the enrolment restriction and Mishra’s apology, but questions surrounding the BCI’s original decision and the ongoing inquiry remain.
The episode has also prompted a broader debate within India’s legal community about how student dissent should be handled by regulatory bodies and academic institutions.
For NALSAR’s 2026 graduates, the immediate concern over enrolment has been resolved. However, the controversy surrounding the convocation invitation and the BCI’s response is likely to continue to be debated within India’s legal and academic circles.
