SCBA Prez condemns BCI's bar on NALSAR grads over CJI invite row

SCBA President Vikas Singh condemned the BCI's now-withdrawn order barring NALSAR's 2026 graduates from enrolment. He termed the move, which followed a campaign against a CJI visit, as 'arbitrary, illegal and disproportionate.'

SCBA President Condemns BCI's 'Arbitrary' Direction

Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President and Senior Advocate Vikas Singh has condemned the Bar Council of India's (BCI) now-withdrawn direction barring State Bar Councils from enrolling NALSAR University of Law's 2026 graduates as advocates over CJI Surya Kant's invite controversy and has termed it arbitrary, illegal and disproportionate.

The BCI had taken the stringent step after reports of a campaign at NALSAR opposing the proposed participation of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as chief guest at the university's convocation. The Council had sought a factual report from the Vice-Chancellor on those who initiated, organised or mobilised the campaign and, pending the inquiry, directed that no 2026 graduate be enrolled by any State Bar Council. However, BCI's decision now stands withdrawn.

In a letter to BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra on August 13, Singh strongly objected to the direction, saying the blanket restriction amounted to an attempt to intimidate law students for exercising their fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. "This unprecedented and wholly arbitrary direction is, in my view, illegal, disproportionate and fundamentally unsustainable. It amounts to an attempt to intimidate law students for exercising their fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression", the letter said.

Singh said universities were intended to be spaces for free thought and debate and that students should not be threatened with denial of entry into the legal profession merely for disagreeing with a constitutional authority. "Students cannot be threatened with denial of their right to enter the legal profession merely because they have expressed disagreement with a constitutional authority", the senior lawyer added.

Singh, however, clarified that his objection to the BCI's direction should not be read as support for any act of disrespect towards the highest judicial office in the country. "Let me make it clear that I do not support any act of disrespect towards the highest constitutional authority of the country", the letter said.

He also pointed out that the Advocates Act, 1961 provides the statutory framework governing enrolment and disqualification, and said the blanket restriction on the NALSAR batch raised concerns under Article 19(1)(g), which protects the right to practise a profession of one's choice.

Singh said the BCI, as the apex regulatory body of the legal profession, had a greater responsibility to uphold the rule of law and constitutional values and could not use the professional future of young graduates as a means of institutional discipline. "It cannot itself resort to collective punishment or use the professional future of young graduates as a means of institutional discipline", it reads.

He urged the BCI to immediately withdraw the direction and allow the 2026 NALSAR graduates to seek enrolment in accordance with law.

BCI Modifies Stance, Withdraws Blanket Ban

The BCI has subsequently modified its direction following deliberations by the Council. It said its latest information indicated that the vast majority of the 2026 NALSAR graduates were innocent and were not inclined to participate in any move to disrespect the CJI.

The Council consequently restored the right of all 2026 graduates to enrol with the State Bar Council of their choice, while retaining its inquiry into the episode. It said it had received information that a handful of teachers and outsiders were instrumental in instigating students and that further action would follow the Vice-Chancellor's report. (ANI)

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)