“Who are they to raise an issue?”: SC restrains BCI action against NALSAR students as questions on conflict of interest swirl

“IT’S A DIALOGUE BETWEEN students and me. Who are they (the Bar Council of India) to unnecessarily raise an issue?,” said Chief Justice of India (‘CJI’) earlier today when Senior Advocate K Parameshwar orally mentioned a writ petition against the Bar Council of India (‘BCI’) Chairman’s directions. Although the BCI later withdrew the directions, the cause of action still survives, Parmeshwar submitted before the bench comprising the CJI and Justices V. Mohana and Joymalya Bagchi. 

“I myself, during student days, was involved in student activities. Peacefully they are raising voice, they should be allowed. Even if they are wrong, assuming, they have the right to protest. Who can stop them?” the CJI said. “Why Bar Council or any other body should interfere?,” he added. 

Despite the BCI having withdrawn the directions and all consequential proceedings, the bench proceeded to pass an interim order directing that no punitive action shall be taken against the students or faculty of NALSAR at the instance of the BCI or any Bar Council. 

The proceeding, however, has raised the question of conflict of interest given that CJI’s handling of the police brutality was the underlying reason for the action by the NALSAR-2026 batch. It has been a basic principle of the judicial system that no one should be a judge in his or her own case or nemo judex in re sua.  In 1997, the Supreme Court adopted the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life which iterates the same principle. Whenever a judge has been allocated a case in which there exists a reasonable apprehension that he might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question he is required to decide, he or she must ideally recuse. 

BCI’s abrupt issuance of directions and immediate withdrawal 

On July 23, a group of graduating students at NALSAR wrote to the university administration to reconsider the invitation to the CJI as the chief guest for the University’s 23rd convocation. The students referred to publicly available reports concerning the CJI’s handling of allegations of police brutality against protesters at Jantar Mantar and wrote, “We feel that receiving our degrees from a dignitary whose recent public conduct, as reported, appears dismissive of serious allegations of police brutality against protesting citizens sits uncomfortably with what we have been taught to value during our time at NALSAR.”

At around 6:45 pm yesterday, reports emerged of a communication issued by BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra to the Vice Chancellor of NALSAR and State Bar Councils (‘SBCs’) in response to the student campaign. Mishra had initially directed SBCs not to enrol any student graduating from NALSAR in 2026 until further orders and directed the University’s Vice Chancellor to submit, within three days, a factual report identifying those who were instrumental in initiating or mobilising the campaign against the participation of CJI at the convocation. 

Shortly thereafter at around 8:43 pm, the BCI modified its directions stating that, “After thorough discussion the Members are of the unanimous view that as per the latest report, the vast majority of the students of NALSAR (2026 pass out students) are innocent and they were not inclined to take part in the move of disrespect.” The modified communication, however, retained the direction for an inquiry report and alleged that a few teachers and outsiders had been “instrumental in instigating” the students.

Amid the developments, NALSAR Vice-Chancellor Professor Srikrishna Deva Rao issued a press release stating that the University would examine whether such an inquiry would constitute a constitutional exercise of its powers. He further said that the matter would be placed before the University’s Executive Council, its highest decision-making body.

Then, at 12:37 am, Mishra announced via X a complete closure of proceedings and that no further action was needed. An official communication is yet to follow. 

Inadequate deliberation and consultation with the BCI 

While the initial communication from BCI was still in effect, Manoj Kumar, Vice- Chairman of the Executive Committee of BCI, reportedly criticised and expressed anguish over the directions of Chairman Mishra. “In a democratic country, students, like every other citizen, are entitled to express their views and disagreement,” he said. 

This raised questions of whether there had been adequate deliberation and consultation within the BCI before sweeping directions were issued that, even temporarily, placed the professional futures of an entire graduating batch in jeopardy. The subsequent modification and eventual withdrawal of the directions only reinforced the need to examine whether the initial direction was issued after sufficient consideration. 

Mishra himself subsequently acknowledged that the decision had been taken suddenly and in haste.

Another petition seeking structural reforms in the functioning of the BCI with respect to the tenure of its members was filed today in the Supreme Court by Advocate M Varadhan. The plea urges the Court to direct that no individual be permitted to hold the office of Chairman or Vice-Chairman for more than three terms during their lifetime, irrespective of whether those terms are consecutive or non-consecutive. Meanwhile, Supreme Court Bar Association President Vikas Singh has criticised the Chairman’s conduct, stating, “BCI chairman is behaving like the BCI is his personal property.”