NALSAR Student Bar Council Asks for Manan Mishra's Apology Over Remarks on CJI Protesters

Hyderabad: The Student Bar Council of the NALSAR University of Law have demanded an apology from Bar Council of India chairman Manan Kumar Mishra for his remarks on students in his now-withdrawn order directing state Bar Councils not to enrol the graduating batch of students over their protests against the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.

The students of NALSAR had initially protested against the CJI's presence at the upcoming convocation of the university over his "cockroaches" and subsequent courtroom remarks. Mishra's two orders, one imposing the ban on enrolment and the other withdrawing it, made news in the meantime.

The Student Bar Council of NALSAR, in a late night release on August 14, took strong exception to the language of the letter from Mishra which sought to surveil the identity of virtually everyone involved in the alleged campaign against CJI Surya Kant over his participation in the university convocation, including "it's initiators, drafters, organisers, coordinators, mobilisers, spokespersons, social media administrators, office bearers of student bodies, faculty, research scholars, alumni and external participants".

The council also took objection to the language in the letter which made mention of "groupism" and "dirty politics" within the university and the role of faculty in "misleading, misguiding and instigating students". Since the communication by the BCI chairman on X did not withdraw these allegations, the council demanded an apology from him. "Nor can this controversy be divorced from the institutional context in which it has arisen," it said.

In a five page statement, the student body noted, "We acknowledge the recession of the letter (second one) and the extinguishment of the cause of action. However, even then, it is important for us to record our condemnation of this event at four levels (a) statutory (b) constitutional (c) first principles and (d) in the light of wider social realities of repression and unfreedom."

The statement went on to elaborate the council's submissions against each of the four heads. The council noted that Mishra is not only the head of a statutory regulator but a sitting Rajya Sabha member of BJP who has publicly described himself as a supporter of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Against this backdrop, the attempt to identify faculty members, alumni, research scholars, and "outsiders" behind dissent appears like the familiar political exercise in which dissent is recast as conspiracy, disagreement as subversion, and protest as external manipulation.

A student leader who did not want to be named told The Wire that the two orders were blatantly illegal and had to be challenged. The matter was discussed threadbare at a brainstorming session by the elected members of the council, the student said. On the statutory front, it was discussed that Section 24 A of the Advocates Act, 1961, restricts disqualification from enrolment strictly to convictions for criminal offences which did not take place in the present case.

The judgement in Ex-Capt Harish Uppal vs Union of India case which was cited by the BCI in support of its action did not remotely confer upon the BCI a roving mandate to intervene in the internal affairs of a university, much less threaten the enrolment of an entire graduating batch, the students held.

The council note in its statement that Section 49 of the Advocates Act also did not give the BCI power to direct the Vice-Chancellor to prepare an inquiry report. It said:

The language of the letter was highly objectionable. The allegations were unprofessional, unfounded and without any substance. Making such claims against members of the university family for mere peaceful expression of legitimate dissent was uncalled for and reeks of malice.

On the constitutional aspect, the council reminded that Article 19 (1) (a) mandated every individual to respect others' right to dissent. "The chairperson seems to have forgotten the same," it noted.

Referring to first principles, the statement said the finest traditions of the Bar were not those of deference to power but of defending liberty, speaking uncomfortable truths and standing by principle when it is unpopular. "Rights become hollow when exercised under fear, and democracy is diminished when disagreement is treated as suspicion."

On wider social realities facing the legal profession, the council noted that the students of NALSAR always stood in solidarity with those resisting State repression on the streets of Delhi, universities across the country and against incidents of police brutality elsewhere. It is because dissent has so often been met with surveillance, intimidation and disciplinary threats that this moment mattered.

Meanwhile, as many as 441 alumni have addressed an open letter to the BCI chairman Mishra questioning his authority in asking State Bar Councils not to enrol as advocates 2026 batch of university students who would graduate after the convocation.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.