# NALSAR Enrollment Ban Row: BCI Chairman Manan Mishra Backtracks After Fierce Legal Opposition

> Following intense backlash from legal experts and student bodies over a directive banning NALSAR University graduates from enrolling as advocates, BCI Chairman Manan Mishra completely withdrew the order within hours.

**Type:** article · **Category:** Investigations · **Published:** 2026-08-14 · **Source:** TrendKia
**Canonical:** https://trendkia.com/en/investigations/nalsar-chhatron-ke-namankana-para-roka-ka-mamala-bhari-virodha-ke-bada-bci-adhyaksha-manan-mishra-ne-vapasa-liya-pharamana-16659 · **Language:** English
**Tags:** NALSAR University, Manan Mishra, Bar Council of India, Justice Suryakant, Supreme Court, Hyderabad Law School, Advocates Act 1961

The sharp standoff surrounding the enrollment of NALSAR University of Law's graduating batch of 2026 has come to a complete halt after the Bar Council of India (BCI) officially rescinded its controversial directive. BCI Chairman Manan Mishra, facing relentless criticism from legal luminaries, faculty, and student unions, fully withdrew the ban that sought to block the entire batch from registering as advocates across state bar councils. The friction initially erupted over NALSAR students objecting to the invitation extended to Chief Justice Justice Suryakant as the chief guest for their upcoming annual convocation ceremony. What started as an internal campus debate quickly escalated into a national constitutional discourse regarding regulatory authority and student rights.

## How the NALSAR Controversy Escalated to the Apex Court
NALSAR University of Law, situated in Hyderabad, Telangana, is recognized as one of India's premier national law universities, currently educating approximately 1,400 students. By long-standing tradition, the Chief Justice delivers the keynote convocation address every year to graduating law cohorts, an event traditionally hosted during August or September. As preparations for this year's convocation began to take shape, friction emerged among the graduating students regarding the choice of the chief guest.

On 23 July, a group of 70 graduating students from the LLB and LLM programs submitted a formal representation to the university administration, urging them not to invite Justice Suryakant. The primary driver behind their grievance stemmed from oral observations made by a Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Suryakant during a hearing related to a protest at Jantar Mantar. The movement gained momentum rapidly, with the number of signatory students reaching 380. As the administration delayed taking a definitive stance, student representatives warned of boycotting the convocation proceedings if their concerns were unaddressed.

## The Jantar Mantar Protest and Supreme Court Remarks
The root of the student discontent lies in an event that unfolded on 20 July during a public demonstration organized by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi. On 22 July, an advocate approached the Supreme Court seeking suo motu intervention against alleged police misconduct during the march from Jantar Mantar toward Parliament. The petition argued that law enforcement had used unprovoked force against non-violent demonstrators.

During the court proceedings, Chief Justice Justice Suryakant intervened and instructed the petitioning counsel not to waste the court's time. When the advocate offered to present video recordings documenting police actions against unarmed citizens, the Chief Justice declined an immediate hearing, observing that the bench had no interest in watching video footage and lacked the time for it. These remarks sparked outrage among NALSAR students, who asserted in their representation that receiving degrees from a judge who dismissed allegations of police brutality violated the core values taught at NALSAR, such as constitutional protection and access to justice. Students from the 2028 and 2029 batches subsequently pledged solidarity with the movement.

## BCI Chairman's Directive and the Three-Day Ultimatum
On 12 August, the office of NALSAR Vice-Chancellor Professor Srikrishna Deva Rao confirmed that a formal invitation had been dispatched to Justice Suryakant. In swift retaliation on 13 August, BCI Chairman Manan Mishra dispatched an overarching directive to both the Vice-Chancellor and all State Bar Councils nationwide. The directive explicitly mandated that no student graduating from NALSAR in 2026 would be enrolled as an advocate in any State Bar Council.

Under Indian legal framework, completing a law degree is insufficient to practice law; graduates must formally register with a State Bar Council. Thus, the BCI directive threatened to stall the careers of the entire graduating class. Furthermore, Mishra demanded that the Vice-Chancellor submit within 3 days a comprehensive list detailing names, identification records, and background checks of all students involved in organizing protests against the CJI, alongside details of any external individuals involved. The BCI asserted that enrollment was stayed until 19 August pending a full inquiry, with Mishra publicly stating that students lacking respect for the Chief Justice would become a burden on the legal profession.

## Voices of Resistance: Legal Objections and Social Media Heat
The BCI order provoked immediate resistance from both institutional leaders and prominent advocates. Mrinal Chaudhary, former President of the Gauhati High Court Bar Association, condemned the order as arbitrary and entirely beyond the BCI's legal mandate, noting that punishing an entire cohort without due process violated fundamental principles of natural justice. Simultaneously, NALSAR Vice-Chancellor Srikrishna Deva Rao stated on 13 August that the university would thoroughly examine whether the BCI possessed the statutory authority to demand such an inquiry before responding.

Concurrently, digital resistance mounted on platform X. Leaders of the Cockroach Janta Party, including founder Abhijit Deepke and spokesperson Saurav Das, posted sharp critiques at 7:34 PM and 8:29 PM, accusing the BCI leadership of acting on political motives. Das threatened nationwide demonstrations outside the BCI headquarters and Mishra's residence if the decision was not retracted immediately. Following this escalating public pressure, Mishra posted a revised statement at 8:45 PM modifying the directive to permit student enrollment while retaining an internal inquiry.

## The Midnight Retreat: How Manan Mishra Reversed the Decision
The partial compromise failed to appease the legal community and protesting student groups. Saurav Das maintained that keeping the inquiry active was unacceptable and demanded an unconditional rollback. At 9:50 PM, Abhijit Deepke posted asking whether it was time for Mishra to step down. The intense pressure culminated late at night when Manan Mishra posted a complete withdrawal of the order at 12:37 AM on X.

In his midnight communication, Mishra stated that after reviewing feedback from senior advocates, bar members, law students, and concerned citizens, the BCI was satisfied that the NALSAR 2026 batch had no hand in deliberate agitation. Consequently, all punitive and investigative measures were formally dropped. By the morning of 14 August, Mishra publicly remarked to news outlets that the ultimate goal of protecting youth rights was shared by all parties involved, signaling an end to the standoff.

## Who is Manan Mishra? Career Trajectory from Bihar to BCI and Parliament
Manan Mishra, the figure at the epicenter of the controversy, is a prominent lawyer and politician. He is a Senior Advocate practicing in the Supreme Court of India and serves as the Chairman of the Bar Council of India. Additionally, in 2024, he was nominated to the Rajya Sabha as a Member of Parliament representing the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) from Bihar.

Hailing originally from Gopalganj in Bihar, Mishra completed his B.Sc (Honours) at Rajendra College in Chhapra before earning his LLB from Patna Law College. He commenced his legal practice at the Gopalganj Civil Court, remaining there until 1982 before transitioning to the Patna High Court and subsequently to the Supreme Court. In his earlier political career, he contested the 2010 Bihar Legislative Assembly election on a Congress ticket but was unsuccessful. First elected as BCI President in 2014, a position carrying a two-year tenure, Mishra has continuously retained the chairmanship through successive terms.

## Jurisdiction and Legal Nuances: Did BCI Exceed Its Mandate?
This controversy has highlighted critical questions regarding the statutory limits of regulatory oversight in higher legal education. Under Section 7 of the Advocates Act 1961, the Bar Council of India is empowered to lay down standards of legal education, recognize universities whose degrees qualify graduates for enrollment, and exercise general supervision over State Bar Councils.

However, legal experts point out that the Advocates Act grants no authority to the BCI to block individual or batch enrollments based on campus political activism or student expression. According to Professor G. Mohan Gopal, former Director of the National Judicial Academy, campus disciplinary matters fall strictly within the internal administrative jurisdiction of the university concerned. The BCI's direct intervention was seen by scholars as an overreach of its regulatory mandate, rendering the eventual withdrawal of the directive a necessary course correction.

## What this means for you
- **Across India:** The resolution reaffirms that regulatory bodies like the BCI cannot arbitrarily suspend law graduates' enrollment rights over campus freedom of expression and student protests.
- **In Hyderabad (Telangana):** Hundreds of graduating law students at NALSAR University are cleared to register as practicing advocates across State Bar Councils without administrative hindrance.

## Questions & Answers

### 1. What restriction did the BCI initially place on NALSAR students?
BCI Chairman Manan Mishra issued a directive preventing all 2026 batch graduates of NALSAR University from enrolling as advocates in any State Bar Council.

### 2. Why were NALSAR students opposing Justice Suryakant's attendance?
Students objected to his court remarks regarding a petition on police action at Jantar Mantar, arguing those observations contradicted constitutional values taught at NALSAR.

### 3. Why did the Bar Council of India reverse its decision?
Faced with widespread criticism from legal experts, institutional resistance, and threats of protests outside its office, the BCI completely withdrew the ban within hours.

### 4. Who is Manan Mishra?
Manan Mishra is a Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court of India, Chairman of the Bar Council of India, and a BJP Rajya Sabha MP nominated from Bihar in 2024.

### 5. Does the BCI have statutory authority to ban student enrollments over campus protests?
Legal experts emphasize that while Section 7 of the Advocates Act 1961 grants oversight powers, it contains no provision allowing the BCI to suspend bar enrollments based on student demonstrations.

---
_TrendKia — Har trend, sabse pehle.. Machine-readable view; canonical HTML at the URL above._