New Delhi, August 18, 2026: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant has clarified that he never accepted an invitation to be the chief guest at the upcoming convocation of NALSAR University of Law in Hyderabad, putting an end to speculation over whether he would attend the ceremony amid a growing controversy involving students and the Bar Council of India (BCI).
CJI Surya Kant reportedly told The Times of India that he had “never consented” to NALSAR’s invitation. He further indicated that there was therefore no question of him attending the convocation.
Why Did NALSAR Students Oppose the Invitation?
The controversy began after a section of NALSAR’s outgoing students objected to the proposed participation of CJI Surya Kant as the chief guest at their convocation.
The students’ concerns were linked to the CJI’s recent conduct and remarks in matters involving protests and alleged police action against demonstrators. A section of the 2026 graduating batch urged the university administration to reconsider the invitation, arguing that the choice of chief guest should reflect the values associated with legal education, constitutional rights and democratic dissent.
The students’ opposition was reportedly expressed through a collective campaign rather than a demand to disrupt the convocation.
BCI Intervention Escalates the Controversy
The issue took a dramatic turn when the Bar Council of India initially directed that graduates of NALSAR’s 2026 batch should not be enrolled as advocates until further orders.
The BCI also sought information from NALSAR regarding students who were allegedly involved in organising or mobilising the campaign against the CJI’s proposed appearance. The decision triggered criticism from sections of the legal community, with concerns being raised over whether an entire graduating batch should face consequences because of a student protest.
The BCI subsequently reversed the enrolment restriction and expressed regret over the earlier decision. BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra also apologised to law students following the backlash surrounding the episode.
Supreme Court Steps Into the Debate
The controversy also drew attention from the Supreme Court, particularly over the BCI’s intervention in an issue involving student expression and a university event.
The episode has raised broader questions about the boundaries of student dissent, institutional autonomy and the role of professional regulatory bodies in responding to criticism of constitutional authorities.
With CJI Surya Kant now clarifying that he never accepted the NALSAR invitation, the immediate question of his attendance at the convocation appears to have been settled.
A Larger Debate Over Dissent
The NALSAR controversy has developed beyond a disagreement over a convocation guest. It has become a wider discussion about how law students should be able to express disagreement with public institutions and constitutional authorities.
For students at a premier law university, the episode has also highlighted the tension between academic freedom and institutional authority. At the same time, the BCI’s reversal demonstrated how quickly the controversy could escalate when professional consequences were attached to a campus protest.
CJI Surya Kant’s latest clarification removes uncertainty about his participation, but the questions raised by the NALSAR episode—about dissent, student rights and institutional independence—are likely to continue generating debate within India’s legal and academic circles.
