Law

The controversy over student opposition to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant’s appearance at a law school convocation has now spread from Hyderabad to Bengaluru, with students and alumni of the National Law School of India University (NLSIU) expressing solidarity with their counterparts at NALSAR University of Law.

The NLSIU students have questioned the proposed participation of both CJI Surya Kant and Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra at their upcoming convocation, arguing that the episode raises wider concerns about freedom of expression, student dissent and the power of professional institutions over the careers of law graduates.

ALSO READ: BCI Reverses NALSAR Ban, Says Majority of 2026 Graduates Innocent in CJI Convocation Row

In a statement dated August 15, a group of 165 members of NLSIU’s graduating class, which comprises 409 current students and 128 alumni, expressed “unconditional solidarity” with the students of NALSAR.

The group said the issue was not simply about who attends a convocation, but about whether students at premier law schools can disagree with powerful public institutions without fearing consequences for their professional careers.

Why Are NLSIU Students Supporting NALSAR Students?

The NLSIU students criticised the BCI’s response to the NALSAR controversy, particularly its initial decision to prevent the 2026 graduating batch from enrolling with state bar councils.

The students argued that expressing disagreement with a public figure or institution should not result in professional consequences.

They called on the BCI to issue an unconditional apology to the NALSAR student and faculty community, alleging that the council’s actions infringed upon students’ freedom of speech and expression.

The NLSIU group has also raised questions about the use of official BCI letterhead in connection with the controversial directive issued by BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra.

ALSO READ: Bombay High Court Allows ILS Law Students to Appear for Exams Despite Attendance Shortfall

What Happened At NALSAR?

The controversy began at NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, after students from the 2026 graduating batch objected to the proposed invitation of CJI Surya Kant as the chief guest at their convocation.

The students’ objections came after remarks made by the CJI during proceedings concerning allegations of police excesses during protests in Delhi. During the proceedings, he was quoted as saying, “Don't waste our time.”

Justice Surya Kant later clarified that he had not refused to hear the petition and had instead asked that it be filed in the appropriate manner.

The student protest subsequently triggered an unprecedented response from the BCI.

On August 13, the BCI directed state bar councils not to enrol graduates of NALSAR’s 2026 batch until further orders. The directive was widely criticised as a punitive response to student dissent.

The order stated that law students who showed insufficient respect for the country’s highest judicial office could not be expected to become responsible advocates, teachers or judges.

BCI Withdraws NALSAR Enrolment Directive

The BCI’s decision triggered significant backlash within the legal and academic community.

Mishra subsequently clarified that the action was not intended to punish the entire graduating batch and acknowledged that the “vast majority” of students were innocent and should not suffer because of the alleged actions of a few.

The BCI later withdrew the directive in full.

Mishra also apologised to law students, saying their dignity, independence of thought and legitimate concerns should be respected.

The Supreme Court also criticised the BCI’s intervention. CJI Surya Kant said the matter was “between me and the students”, indicating that disagreement between students and the Chief Justice should not have been converted into an issue concerning professional enrolment.

ALSO READ: BCI Reverses NALSAR Ban, Says Majority of 2026 Graduates Innocent in CJI Convocation Row

Why Is NLSIU Now Questioning CJI Surya Kant’s Presence?

Against this backdrop, NLSIU students and alumni have extended their support to the NALSAR community while raising questions about the proposed participation of both CJI Surya Kant and BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra at their own convocation.

The NLSIU statement argues that the dispute has implications beyond a single university or convocation. According to the students, the central question is whether law students can exercise freedom of speech and express dissent without facing institutional retaliation.

The students have also questioned whether the BCI chairman has the authority to take decisions of such significance unilaterally and sought greater clarity regarding the procedure followed in issuing the NALSAR directive.

More than 700 NLSIU students and alumni have reportedly raised concerns about the BCI’s role and the authority exercised by its chairman.

NLSIU Has Institutional Links With CJI, BCI

The development is significant because NLSIU has a long-standing institutional relationship with both the office of the Chief Justice of India and the BCI.

The university’s governing bodies include the CJI and BCI chairman. At NLSIU’s 2025 convocation, Justice Surya Kant, who was not yet the CJI at the time, presided over the ceremony, while Manan Kumar Mishra delivered the welcome address.

The latest student statement therefore comes within an established institutional relationship between the university and the two offices.

However, the NALSAR controversy appears to have changed the context surrounding their proposed participation in the upcoming ceremony.

What Happens Next?

Although the BCI has withdrawn its controversial NALSAR directive and its chairman has apologised, the issue continues to generate debate across India’s premier law schools.

The NLSIU students’ statement has shifted the conversation from one university to a broader discussion about student dissent, freedom of expression, institutional accountability and the professional consequences of disagreement.

The controversy also places renewed attention on the relationship between law students, universities, the BCI and the judiciary. For students preparing to enter the legal profession, the question of whether academic dissent can be separated from professional enrolment has become central to the debate.

The Bar Council of India (BCI) on Thursday reversed its decision to restrict the enrolment of NALSAR University of Law's 2026 graduating batch, stating that the "vast majority" of students were innocent in the controversy surrounding the proposed invitation of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to the university's convocation.

In a fresh communication issued hours after its earlier order, the legal regulator clarified that students graduating from NALSAR in 2026 would be entitled to seek enrolment with any state bar council of their choice.

The BCI said its decision followed a detailed discussion among its members and a review of the latest information available about the controversy.

"After thorough discussion, the members are of the unanimous view that as per the latest report, 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 regulator said.

The BCI further claimed that, according to information received from some sources, a small number of teachers and outsiders had allegedly played a role in instigating students. It stressed that students should not face professional consequences for actions in which they had no involvement.

"No student shall be made to suffer without any fault on his part," the BCI said.

The clarification came after the regulator's earlier circular sparked widespread criticism. The original order had directed all state bar councils not to enrol any student graduating from NALSAR in 2026 until further orders.

The action followed objections raised by a section of graduating students over a reported proposal to invite CJI Surya Kant as the chief guest at the university's convocation.

In its earlier order, the BCI had also directed NALSAR to submit a detailed report within three days, including information about students allegedly involved in initiating, organising or mobilising the campaign against the proposed participation of the Chief Justice.

BCI chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra had strongly criticised the reported student campaign, arguing that disrespect towards the country's highest judicial office raised questions about a person's suitability for the legal profession.

He had said that a law student who showed no regard for the highest judicial office could not be expected to become a responsible advocate, teacher or judge.

The BCI's latest decision, however, marks a significant reversal, ensuring that the 2026 NALSAR graduating batch will not be collectively prevented from entering the legal profession because of the controversy.

The development is expected to provide relief to hundreds of graduating law students whose professional enrolment had been put on hold by the earlier directive.

The Kerala High Court has set aside the Central government's decision to deny the renewal of Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) registration to two NGOs that had been linked to protests against the Vizhinjam seaport project.

In its August 11, 2026 ruling, the court directed the authorities to reconsider the FCRA renewal applications of Save A Family Plan and Kerala Social Service Forum and pass fresh orders within three months.

The court also stressed that authorities must provide clear and specific reasons if they decide to reject the applications again, holding that transparency in administrative decisions is an essential component of a fair process.

Centre's allegations over foreign funds

The Central government had opposed renewal of the NGOs' FCRA certificates, citing concerns over the alleged use of foreign contributions in connection with protests against the Vizhinjam port project.

The government argued that receiving foreign contributions is not a fundamental right and that organisations receiving such funds must ensure that the money is used strictly for permitted purposes.

It also maintained that authorities have the power to refuse FCRA renewal where there are concerns that foreign funds could be misused in ways that affect national security or public order.

The NGOs challenged the decision before the High Court.

Court questions link between NGOs and protests

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, who presided over the matter, questioned the basis of the government's reasoning and described the alleged connection between the NGOs' activities and funding of the protests as “too far-fetched.”

The court noted that the intelligence report relied upon by the authorities did not indicate instances of violence or coercive demonstrations.

The Bench also observed that peaceful protests against development projects cannot automatically be treated as undesirable activities. It further held that financial support for peaceful protests, by itself, does not amount to a violation of FCRA provisions.

The court examined the intelligence material placed before it and found no sensitive information that justified withholding it from the petitioners.

It noted that protests are a common feature of public responses to development projects and should not automatically be equated with activities posing a threat to national security.

Fresh decision ordered

The High Court has directed the competent authorities to reconsider the FCRA applications of both NGOs and issue fresh decisions within three months.

The court also emphasised that any future rejection must be supported by clear reasons, allowing the organisations to understand the basis of the decision.

The Central government had previously cited alleged FCRA violations, including claims that foreign contributions were used for personal gain and activities that could disrupt social harmony.

In a separate direction, the court permitted Save A Family Plan to utilise ₹16 crore in foreign contributions that it had received during the period when its FCRA registration was valid.

The ruling provides temporary relief to the two NGOs and places renewed focus on the standards authorities must follow when taking action against organisations receiving foreign contributions.

It also underscores the distinction between peaceful democratic protest and activities that may legitimately raise concerns under national security or foreign-funding laws.

The Bombay High Court has granted a one-time special exemption to students of ILS Law College, Pune, allowing them to appear for their semester-end examinations for the 2025-26 academic year despite falling short of the prescribed attendance requirement.

The decision was delivered by a Bench comprising Justices Riyaz Chagla and Farhan Dubash, which relied on a July 21 order of the Supreme Court granting similar relief to students affected by attendance-related restrictions.

The High Court made it clear that the relief is strictly limited to the 2025-26 academic session and will not change attendance requirements applicable to students in future academic years.

“Students pursuing legal education shall continue to remain bound by the attendance requirements otherwise applicable to them,” the Bench said.

41 ILS students had approached court

The case arose from a petition filed by 41 students enrolled in the three-year and five-year law programmes at ILS Law College, which is affiliated with Savitribai Phule Pune University (SPPU).

According to the university, the students had attendance ranging between 46% and 54%, significantly below the minimum requirement of 75%.

The students argued that an earlier provision permitting a 20% relaxation from a 70% attendance requirement should apply to them. They relied on a November 3, 2025 order of the Delhi High Court concerning students who faced being barred from examinations because of attendance shortages.

Although the Supreme Court had subsequently stayed the Delhi High Court order, it later granted a one-time reprieve to students in various colleges, allowing them to appear for their final examinations for the 2025-26 academic year.

Relief extended beyond petitioners

The Bombay High Court said the Supreme Court had treated similarly situated students as a “protected class” and extended the benefit of the relief to all ILS students who were similarly affected, including those who had not filed individual petitions.

The Bench rejected arguments that the Supreme Court's order was intended only for final-year students. It observed that students in earlier years could also suffer serious academic consequences if they were prevented from taking examinations, including disruption to their progression through the course.

The court also clarified that it was not relying on the Delhi High Court's ruling as binding precedent. Instead, it was giving effect to the Supreme Court's directions.

Supplementary exams ordered

The High Court has further directed the university to conduct supplementary examinations within four weeks for students who were unable to appear for their 2025-26 examinations because of attendance-related restrictions.

The direction is intended to ensure that affected students receive an opportunity to complete their examinations and continue their academic progression.

However, the court stressed that the order should not be interpreted as a relaxation of attendance requirements generally.

The special permission applies only to the 2025-26 academic year, and law students will continue to be required to meet the applicable attendance standards in subsequent academic sessions.

The ruling provides immediate relief to affected ILS students while simultaneously reinforcing that the attendance requirements governing legal education remain applicable going forward.

Thousands of law aspirants in Maharashtra are facing uncertainty in the 2026 admission process after Government Law College (GLC), Mumbai, and dozens of other law colleges were excluded from the first round of the Centralised Admission Process (CAP) because of pending mandatory approvals.

The exclusion of GLC, one of Maharashtra's oldest and most sought-after law colleges, is particularly significant for high-scoring candidates who would ordinarily have placed it at the top of their preference list.

Under the existing CAP rules, students who are allotted the college listed as their first preference are required to accept the seat. If they reject it, they are automatically excluded from the admission process.

With GLC unavailable in the opening round, students who would have ranked the college first must now choose another institution as their top preference. If that college is allotted, they may have to accept it, potentially leaving them unable to compete for GLC in a later round.

Nearly half of law colleges excluded

The disruption extends well beyond GLC Mumbai. Several Mumbai University-affiliated law colleges have also been kept out of the first CAP round after failing to secure mandatory approvals.

Data available with the Directorate of Higher Education (DHE) as of August 5 showed that only 102 colleges offering the three-year LLB programme, with a combined intake of 10,105 seats, had been cleared for the first round.

For the five-year integrated LLB programme, only 66 colleges, offering 5,955 seats, had been approved.

The limited number of participating colleges is significant given the number of applicants. Nearly 54,000 candidates have applied for the three-year LLB programme, while around 20,000 students are competing for five-year law courses.

Why is GLC Mumbai out?

Sources said GLC was excluded because it had not paid the mandatory fee to the Bar Council of India (BCI), a requirement for obtaining the approval needed to participate in the admission process.

The college has reportedly since paid the required fee. Once the necessary approval is received, GLC is expected to join the admission process from Round 2.

Several other Mumbai University-affiliated law colleges are also awaiting BCI approvals.

However, BCI approval is not the only issue. The University of Mumbai has reportedly raised concerns about compliance with mandatory staffing requirements at several institutions, including the appointment of qualified principals and adequate full-time faculty.

Until these deficiencies are addressed and the necessary approvals obtained, the affected colleges may remain outside the CAP process.

Students may get option to revise preferences

There could be some relief for candidates. A law college principal said that a few additional colleges could be added after a court hearing.

Under the current admission schedule, students submit their college preferences before the first two CAP rounds. However, sources said the CET Cell has approached the state government seeking permission for students to revise and resubmit their option forms before the second round after additional colleges are included.

A similar opportunity could also be considered before the third round if more institutions receive approvals.

Such a change would prevent students from being locked into preferences they made when prominent colleges, including GLC Mumbai, were unavailable.

The disruption has triggered criticism from students and legal professionals, who have questioned why regulatory and compliance issues were not resolved before the admission process began.

Lawyer Megha Yadav described the situation as a systemic compliance failure, arguing that students who worked hard to secure high CET percentiles are now facing uncertainty over seats, schedules and institutional credibility.

With thousands of aspirants competing for a limited number of available seats, the inclusion of additional colleges and flexibility in preference submission could become crucial to ensuring a fairer admission process.

The Supreme Court is examining accessibility measures for candidates with disabilities appearing for the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2027, with the Consortium of National Law Universities (NLUs) confirming that candidates who require screen reader software will be permitted to use it during the examination.

The development is aimed at ensuring that differently-abled candidates can participate in the national-level law entrance examination on an equal footing.

The Supreme Court has asked the Consortium and other concerned parties to expedite discussions on revised accessibility guidelines ahead of CLAT 2027. The next hearing in the matter is scheduled for September, while the examination is expected to be conducted in December.

Screen reader option sought in CLAT application form

During the proceedings, Advocate Amar Jain, appearing for the petitioner, pointed out that the existing CLAT application form does not provide a specific option for candidates with disabilities to indicate that they require screen reader software.

He argued that candidates should be able to communicate their accessibility requirements while submitting their applications rather than having to seek arrangements later.

The petitioner's counsel urged the Supreme Court to direct the Consortium of NLUs to add a dedicated screen reader option to the application form. Such a provision, he said, would allow the examination authorities to identify candidates requiring assistive technology in advance and make the necessary arrangements.

Consortium assures screen reader access

During the hearing, the Consortium of National Law Universities reiterated that candidates who require screen reader software will be allowed to use it during CLAT 2027.

The Supreme Court has nevertheless encouraged the parties to complete discussions on the proposed revised guidelines at the earliest so that accessibility arrangements can be clearly established before the examination.

The matter is being heard by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana.

The proceedings stem from a petition filed by Yash Dodani, seeking improved accessibility provisions for differently-abled candidates appearing for CLAT.

September hearing before December exam

With CLAT 2027 expected to be held in December, the September hearing will be important in determining whether the proposed accessibility measures and revised guidelines are finalised before candidates take the examination.

The case highlights the importance of incorporating accessibility requirements directly into the examination application process. Providing candidates with a way to declare their need for assistive technologies in advance could help examination authorities plan appropriate arrangements and reduce uncertainty for candidates on exam day.

The Supreme Court's intervention comes as the Consortium works on updating the guidelines for CLAT 2027, with screen reader access now confirmed as an accommodation for candidates who require it.