New Delhi/Hyderabad: Two alumni of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, have moved the Supreme Court seeking a probe into the manner in which Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra issued directives targeting the university’s 2026 graduating batch over a student campaign opposing Chief Justice of India Surya Kant’s invitation as chief guest for the convocation.
The petition, filed under Diary No. 49499/2026 by Mihira Sood and another (also named in some reports as Abhishek Tiwari) and titled Mihira Sood and anr. v. Bar Council of India and ors., seeks quashing of the BCI letters, an enquiry into how they were issued — including whether a proper meeting of the Council authorised the Chairman’s action — and a restraint on any disciplinary, civil or criminal proceedings against NALSAR students or faculty in the matter.
The episode began when a section of NALSAR’s outgoing 2026 batch submitted representations to the Vice-Chancellor, Registrar and faculty, urging reconsideration of the invitation to CJI Surya Kant. The students cited concerns over the CJI’s remarks during Supreme Court proceedings related to alleged police excesses against protesters during the July 20 “Chalo Sansad” march linked to the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP). Reports indicated around 70 students initially signed, with support later swelling to about 450 across batches.
On August 13, BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra issued a communication directing all State Bar Councils not to enrol any student who obtained a law degree from NALSAR in 2026 “till further orders.” The letter also required NALSAR’s Vice-Chancellor to submit, within three days, an authenticated report identifying those “principally instrumental” in initiating, organising, drafting, coordinating or mobilising the campaign. It characterised the students’ action as an attempt at “intimidation of a constitutional functionary.”
The order triggered widespread outrage among lawyers, students and the legal fraternity. Within hours, Mishra modified it, stating that the “vast majority” of the batch were “innocent” and could enrol, while retaining the demand for a report and indicating further action would follow the Vice-Chancellor’s findings. Late that night or in the early hours of August 14, he announced complete closure of proceedings, posting on X that after considering representations from senior advocates, Bar members, law students and citizens, the BCI was satisfied the 2026 batch “had no role in any disturbance or movement.” “No further action is required,” he stated.
NALSAR Vice-Chancellor Prof. Srikrishna Deva Rao responded that the university would place before its Executive Council the question of whether conducting such an inquiry was constitutionally permissible under its governance regulations.
On August 14, a bench led by CJI Surya Kant (with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana) heard the matter after it was mentioned by senior advocate K. Parameshwar (himself a NALSAR alumnus). The court issued notice to the BCI, directed it to file a counter-affidavit within two weeks, and passed an interim order restraining the BCI or any State Bar Council from taking punitive or criminal action against NALSAR students or faculty over the incidents referred to in Mishra’s letters.
CJI Surya Kant was scathing: “They had no business to interfere. The students have written a letter to me, and it is between me and the students. There is a dialogue between us.” He added that students have a right to protest: “Assuming, even if they are wrong, they have a right to protest. BCI doesn’t have any business.” “Who can stop them?” he asked.
Central to the controversy is the dual role of Manan Kumar Mishra. A senior advocate of the Supreme Court, he has been Chairman of the Bar Council of India since November 2014 and was re-elected unopposed for a record seventh consecutive term in March 2025 (tenure running to 2030).
Mishra is also a Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament from Bihar, nominated by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and elected unopposed in August 2024. He belongs to the ruling party. Earlier, he had contested the 2010 Bihar Assembly elections on a Congress ticket before joining the BJP. Hailing from Gopalganj, Bihar, he practised first at the local civil court, then at the Patna High Court, before becoming a senior advocate in the Supreme Court.
Critics, including elements of the Cockroach Janta Party and sections of the legal fraternity, have linked his political affiliation to questions of institutional independence. Calls for his resignation have grown, with some accusing him of acting “more loyal than the king.” Senior lawyer Nitin Podar called for a probe into “who prompted the BCI to issue such a notification,” arguing it was unlikely to have been Mishra’s idea alone. Former Additional Solicitor General Raju Ramachandran said the episode had damaged the reputation of the legal profession, which “should be in the forefront of civil liberties.” Trinamool Congress Rajya Sabha MP and senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy questioned the BCI’s accountability structure, noting that unelected functionaries control a profession increasingly populated by young, first-generation lawyers.
The petition contends that the BCI acted ultra vires the Advocates Act, 1961. Section 24A exhaustively lists grounds for disqualification from enrolment (conviction involving moral turpitude, etc.). The letters, it argues, manufactured an extra-statutory disqualification based on participation in a peaceful student representation and the pendency of a university inquiry.
It asserts that the students’ internal representation constitutes protected speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Directing identification of organisers and threatening “regulatory considerations” creates a chilling effect on dissent. The BCI’s supervisory powers under Sections 6 and 7, the plea maintains, extend to advocates and standards of legal education — not to pre-enrolment student expression or directing universities to inquire into internal campus activities.
The episode has reignited debates on the BCI’s institutional design, the prolonged tenure of its leadership, and the propriety of a statutory regulator’s head simultaneously serving as a ruling-party parliamentarian. While Mishra has closed the specific proceedings against the NALSAR batch, the Supreme Court’s notice and the alumni plea keep open the larger questions of authority, procedure and independence.
The matter is listed for further hearing, with the BCI required to explain the circumstances under which the controversial letters were issued.