# NALSAR Students Demand Public Apology From BCI Chairman After Retraction of Advocate Enrollment Freeze Over Convocation Protest

> The Bar Council of India has withdrawn its order barring 2026 NALSAR graduates from advocate enrollment, but the student body has raised four key legal questions and demanded an apology from BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra.

**Type:** article · **Category:** Telangana · **Published:** 2026-08-15 · **Source:** TrendKia
**Canonical:** https://trendkia.com/en/telangana/hyderabad-ke-nalsar-kanuna-snsthana-men-bci-ke-adesha-vapasi-ke-bada-bhi-akrosha-chhatron-ne-manan-kumar-mishra-se-mangi-maphi-16990 · **Language:** English
**Tags:** NALSAR Hyderabad, Bar Council of India, Manan Kumar Mishra, Surya Kant, Advocates Act 1961, Legal Education, Student Protest

A high-stakes legal and administrative confrontation between law students at the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR) in Hyderabad and the Bar Council of India (BCI) has reached a critical juncture. The regulatory body for legal education and practice has formally revoked its controversial directive that suspended the advocate enrollment of NALSAR graduates passing out in the year 2026. Along with withdrawing the enrollment freeze, the BCI also terminated all administrative proceedings initiated against the batch of 2026. However, the revocation has failed to fully placate the student community. The Student Bar Council of NALSAR has now called for a formal, public apology from BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, asserting that withdrawing the order does not absolve the regulator from accountability regarding the sweeping allegations made against students and faculty members.

## The Convocation Controversy and Initial BCI Sanctions
The origins of the dispute stem from preparations for NALSAR's upcoming convocation ceremony. The university administration had planned to invite Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as the chief guest for the event. A section of the student body formally requested the institution's management to reconsider this invitation. The students' objection was linked to comments allegedly made by CJI Surya Kant during a Supreme Court hearing concerning alleged police action against demonstrators at Jantar Mantar.

Responding swiftly to the student representation, the Bar Council of India issued a stern directive on 13 August to all State Bar Councils across the country. The council instructed state bodies not to enroll any graduate from NALSAR's 2026 batch as an advocate until further orders. Simultaneously, BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra directed the Vice-Chancellor of NALSAR to submit a certified report within 3 days. The report was required to identify the key individuals involved in initiating, drafting, organizing, coordinating, and mobilizing the campaign. The decision triggered widespread outrage across legal academia, ultimately compelling the regulatory body to reverse its position.

## Why NALSAR Students Remain Outraged Despite Order Withdrawal
While the NALSAR Student Bar Council acknowledged the BCI's decision to retract its letter, student representatives stressed that the revocation alone cannot erase the precedent set by the regulator's actions. The student association declared that the episode must be critically examined through statutory, constitutional, democratic, and broader societal frameworks. Students argue that using administrative enrollment bans to suppress campus representations undermines fundamental constitutional guarantees. Consequently, the student body has outlined four major grievances addressing legal jurisdiction, surveillance, privacy rights, and the freedom of expression.

## Legal Jurisdiction and Questions Over Section 24A of Advocates Act
The first central question raised by the student body challenges the statutory authority of the regulatory body to withhold advocate enrollment. Students cited Section 24A of the Advocates Act, 1961, which explicitly outlines the specific grounds under which an individual can be disqualified from enrolling as an advocate. Statutory disqualifications under the Act strictly pertain to severe criteria such as conviction in criminal offenses involving moral turpitude.

Students pointed out that the law passed by Parliament does not grant the regulatory authority the power to enforce collective disciplinary bans on an entire graduating class over an internal university representation. The student council questioned how participation in an academic or civic campaign could legally justify denying enrollment rights to an entire batch under Section 24A, asserting that the regulatory order exceeded the statutory mandate established by law.

## Concerns Over Profiling, Surveillance, and Privacy Violations
The second major objection raised by the students concerns the extensive personal information demanded by the regulator in its initial inquiry. The BCI's directive had sought the identities of all individuals connected to the campaign, encompassing those who drafted documents, coordinated meetings, managed social media channels, or mobilized participants. The demand covered student office-bearers, faculty members, research scholars, alumni, and external supporters.

The Student Bar Council characterized this demand as an attempt to establish systemic surveillance over academic dissent. Collecting detailed personal profiles of individuals exercising their right to peaceful expression represents a severe infringement on personal privacy. Students expressed concern that creating such registries poses long-term risks to young law graduates, potentially impacting their professional careers and judicial standing for years to come.

## Objections to Charges of Campus Groupism and Dirty Politics
The third grievance focuses on the language and characterizations contained in the regulator's original communication. The BCI letter had alleged the presence of groupism and dirty politics within the NALSAR campus. Furthermore, the communication accused certain faculty members of misleading, misdirecting, and inciting students to take an adversarial stance against judicial dignitaries.

The Student Bar Council firmly rejected these assertions, describing the allegations as unprofessional and completely unfounded. The student body emphasized that questioning administrative decisions or engaging in robust debates is an essential component of a healthy academic environment. Labeling peaceful intellectual dissent as misconduct or political manipulation undermines the core purpose of legal education in a democratic society.

## Controversy Over BCI Remarks on Respect for Highest Judicial Office
The final issue centers on the broader moral observations made by the regulator regarding student character. In its original statement, the BCI remarked that a law student who lacks respect or reverence for the highest judicial office in the country cannot be expected to become a responsible or prudent advocate, teacher, or judge.

Students strongly disputed this characterization, emphasizing that expressing concern over judicial observations does not equate to disrespecting the constitutional office of the Chief Justice. Asserting that the regulator engaged in unwarranted character assassination of students and educators, the NALSAR student body reiterated its demand that BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra issue an explicit public apology to restore the institution's dignity.

## What this means for you
**Across India:** This case sets an important precedent for law students nationwide, establishing that regulatory bodies cannot arbitrarily freeze advocate enrollments over peaceful campus dissent.

**In Telangana:** For the 2026 graduating batch of NALSAR Hyderabad, the path to legal practice stands cleared, removing a major threat to their upcoming professional careers.

## Questions & Answers

### 1. What initial action did the Bar Council of India take against NALSAR students?
On 13 August, the BCI issued a directive instructing all State Bar Councils to freeze the advocate enrollment of NALSAR's 2026 graduating batch until further orders.

### 2. Has the BCI withdrawn its enrollment freeze order?
Yes, the BCI has revoked the enrollment suspension order and formally closed all proceedings against the 2026 batch.

### 3. Why are NALSAR students demanding an apology from the BCI Chairman?
Students maintain that revoking the order is insufficient and demand an apology from BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra for casting doubts on student and faculty integrity.

### 4. What triggered the initial dispute between students and the BCI?
The controversy began when a section of students objected to inviting CJI Surya Kant as the chief guest for NALSAR's convocation ceremony.

### 5. Which legal provision did students cite to challenge the BCI's powers?
Students cited Section 24A of the Advocates Act, 1961, arguing that disqualification grounds are strictly defined by statute and cannot be applied arbitrarily.

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