DC Edit | Bar Council’s Self-goal At Nalsar

The Bar Council of India’s decision to temporarily halt the enrolment of graduates who passed out of Nalsar University of Law in 2026 — a decision that has now been rescinded — because they opposed the university’s invitation to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant — is unfortunate and bad in law and spirit.

According to the Bar Council, the action against the Nalsar students was taken because of their alleged disrespect for the highest judicial office in the country. The Bar, however, did not say which law empowered it to act in a matter in which it has no locus standi.

The Bar Council also did not say how a petition asking the university to reconsider an invitation could be immoral because, after all, the students had left it to the university to accept or reject the petition. If an expression of disagreement is construed as immoral or disrespectful, the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is in serious jeopardy.

The Advocates Act, which gives regulatory powers to the Bar Council, does not empower it to sit in judgment on “the standards of professional conduct and etiquette” to be observed by persons who have not yet become advocates — Nalsar students have not yet become advocates. The law empowers the Bar Council to make rules to maintain the standards of legal education in universities but does not allow it to monitor the moral compass of students.

Though the Bar Council rightly withdrew the defective order within hours, its issue in itself raises serious questions about the legal knowledge of the Bar Council members who supported the impugned order.

Every student has the right to decide from whom they want to receive their degree certificate. If a student does not wish to accept the certificate from a judge, it does not amount to contempt because the distribution of certificates is not a judicial function and, hence, does not lower the majesty of the court.