'No student should be compelled to...': BCI chief apologises to NALSAR students after 2026 batch enrolment halt over CJI Surya Kant row

Bar Council of India (BCI) chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra has apologised to law students following the controversy over Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant's participation in NALSAR University's 2026 convocation and the council's action against the university's graduating batch, according to a report by The Bar and Bench.

In an Independence Day letter, Mishra said the events of the past few days had caused concern among some students. Without naming NALSAR or directly referring to the dispute, he said he was sorry if anything he had said or written had hurt students.

"If anything connected with the present controversy, any of my words, or letter, has hurt the feelings of our law students, I sincerely regret and apologise for the same. There should be no hesitation in saying so. An expression of regret is not a matter of prestige or ego. It is simply an acknowledgment that the feelings and concerns of our students matter."

The apology came two days after the BCI ordered a halt to the enrolment of NALSAR's 2026 graduating batch on August 13. The action followed objections from students over CJI Surya Kant attending their convocation as chief guest. The BCI withdrew the order within hours after facing criticism from members of the legal fraternity.

Don't Miss: Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, Tiger Shroff face Maharashtra FDA action over Vimal ad

NALSAR's Student Bar Council later demanded a public apology from Mishra over the BCI's handling of the issue.

Students, graduating students and alumni of NLSIU Bengaluru also issued a joint statement demanding an apology. NLSIU students also opposed the presence of Mishra and CJI Surya Kant at their convocation.

Mishra says students should decide for themselves

Mishra described students at National Law Universities (NLUs) and other leading Centres of Legal Education as some of the country's most informed young citizens. He said their decisions are closely watched across the legal education system.

He said students should be free to question and protest peacefully, but should also be willing to reconsider an issue when new facts or clarifications emerge.

"Peaceful disagreement, questioning and protest are important features of a constitutional democracy. Students must always remain free to express their views."

Mishra also said students can raise a genuine grievance and later consider a clarification without the two positions being contradictory.

'No student should be compelled to attend'

On the issue of convocation attendance, Mishra said the choice should remain with the students. He described a convocation as an important occasion for students and their families that cannot easily be recreated.

"No student should be compelled to attend, and no student should feel compelled to abstain. My only appeal is that the decision should be taken independently, after considering the matter in its entirety and according to their own judgment."

He said the relationship between the judiciary, the Bar, universities and law students was more important than any temporary dispute. Differences, he said, should be resolved through dialogue, clarification and mutual respect.

Must Read: 'Getting Su-57 is as good as killing AMCA': Ex-IAF chief warns against buying foreign fifth-gen jets

Mishra calls for reconciliation

Mishra urged students and institutions to approach the issue with fairness and said it should not be influenced by outside interests.

"I therefore sincerely hope that the present issue will now be considered with fairness and a spirit of reconciliation. The issue should not be allowed to acquire a political or extraneous colour through outside influence."

He said students were capable of examining the facts, considering the clarification and making their own decisions. He also called on institutions to respect their independence of thought.

Mishra ended by saying that future lawyers, judges, teachers and scholars would need to listen to different views and make decisions based on reason, fairness and the Constitution.