BCI Does U-Turn on Freezing Nalsar’s Graduates’ Enrolment

Hyderabad:The Bar Council of India on Thursday withdrew a temporary freeze on the enrolment of Nalsar University of Law’s 2026 graduates, which was imposed hours earlier for opposing the institute’s decision to invite Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant’s proposed presence at the convocation.

Earlier in the day, the BCI chairman had sought an authenticated factual report from the university identifying those principally involved in initiating, organising, coordinating or mobilising the campaign opposing the CJI's participation in the convocation.

The BCI’s initial move invited strong criticism from advocates, who questioned whether students’ peaceful expression of disagreement can affect their entry into the profession. The Cockroach Janta Party, formed after the CJI’s observations in his court, called the BCI chairman’s move a “grossly illegal order” and demanded its immediate withdrawal.

Commenting on the BCI’s initial order, Vijay Gopal, an advocate of the Telangana High Court, said the BCI chairman had “absolutely no authority” to decide whether eligible graduates would be enrolled. “By virtue of the Advocates Act, 1961, which lays down the requirements and criteria based on which they will be enrolled, once I have the degree and my AIBE licence, the Bar is duty bound to enrol me,” he said.

 Gopal said the BCI chairman had “absolutely no legal authority or supreme position” to decide that eligible graduates would not be allowed to enrol. “Fortune’s rule of law should prevail in this country,” he said.

Lawyer Ravishankar Kodukula, asked about the order before it was retracted, said the students’ decision to express their disagreement should be seen in the context of democratic dissent. “They have their angst. Somewhere the balance is missing. We’re getting close to elections, and a lot of things are happening,” he said.

“Their opinion is their opinion. To accept it or not, it is the college’s choice,” Kodukula said, adding that if the chief guest still attended and students chose to boycott, “it’s their decision”. “Why should BCI come in and make it ugly? Are we becoming so fragile that we can’t tolerate any dissent?”

He also questioned whether the “holier-than-thou attire of the judiciary” should itself be open to scrutiny, referring to the Justice Yeshwant Verma case.

Advocate Ravi Teja said the BCI chairman’s statement was “very disappointing” and should be strongly opposed. “Law students are future lawyers. They are expected to question, think, discuss and speak for constitutional values,” he said, speaking before the order was withdrawn.

Raviteja said the students had expressed their views peacefully through a letter to the Nalsar Vice Chancellor and had neither resorted to violence nor threatened anyone. “So the basic question is: Is expressing an opinion by law students itself wrong?” he asked.

He said Articles 19, 14 and 21 of the Constitution protect fundamental rights, subject to the law, and argued that the head of the legal profession should encourage students to understand and protect constitutional values.

“Questioning is not anti-national. Dissent is not violence. Expressing an opinion is not disrespect. Democracy cannot work without the freedom to question,” Ravi Teja said, demanding that the BCI chairman withdraw the statement and respect the students’ right to express their views peacefully.

Advocate Jane Margaret, also speaking before the BCI U-turn, said, “It is a direct punishment being imposed without being allowed to be heard.” She said the students had at least communicated their position beforehand rather than creating an embarrassing situation at the convocation.

“Such actions should not become precedents for the coming generation,” she said, adding that professors and teachers should intervene and resolve the differences. “If students are not allowed for enrolment, it is not the solution as it is adding fuel to the fire.”

Saurav Das, a spokesperson of Cockroach Janta Party, called the BCI chairman’s move a “grossly illegal order” and demanded that it be withdrawn immediately. “How dare you pass such a grossly illegal order?” he asked.

Das said Nalsar students had exercised democratic dissent against a person they believed was unfit to give them their degrees, asking, “Who are you to intervene?” He also questioned the BCI’s own accountability, including the continuation of elected state Bar Council bodies beyond their terms and the chairman’s tenure, and said lawyers and law students would stand with the Nalsar students if the order was not withdrawn.