Table of Contents
On September 3, the Supreme Court closed one of the more turbulent episodes in India’s recent legal-education history, ruling that the Bar Council of India has no statutory power to regulate how law students conduct themselves before they become advocates. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, set aside two notifications the regulator had issued against Hyderabad’s NALSAR University of Law three weeks earlier — even though the Bar Council itself had backed away from both within hours of issuing them.
It was a striking rebuke, made more so by who delivered it. At the centre of the controversy sat Chief Justice Surya Kant himself, whose own remarks months earlier had set off a chain of events running from a viral protest movement to a convocation dispute to a courtroom order that now defines exactly where the Bar Council’s authority begins and ends.
To understand why the Court felt compelled to draw such a firm line, it helps to rewind to where the trouble actually began — not at NALSAR, but at a Supreme Court hearing months before.
A remark that wouldn’t fade
On May 15, 2026, while hearing a contempt matter connected to senior-advocate designations and allegations of lawyers practising on fraudulent credentials, CJI Surya Kant made an observation about unemployed young people that would follow him for months. Describing them as parasites attacking the system, he said there were “youngsters like cockroaches, who don’t get any employment or have any place” in the profession, some of whom turned to media, social media, or RTI activism to attack everyone in sight.
The remark spread quickly, stripped of its courtroom context. Within a day, a 30-year-old Boston University graduate named Abhijeet Dipke had launched the Cockroach Janta Party, inviting anyone who felt targeted to rally around a platform built on the insult. It caught on fast, climbing past 22 million followers within days and channelling itself into mounting anger over the NEET-UG paper leak and a broader sense that India’s youth had been failed by its institutions.
By July, the party had organised a sustained protest at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar, with activist Sonam Wangchuk joining in an indefinite hunger strike. Matters escalated after a “Sansad Chalo” march on July 20 was met with what protesters called heavy-handed policing, and CJI Kant added fuel to the fire two days later by saying he had no interest in watching video evidence of the police action — reinforcing a narrative that the country’s most senior judge was dismissive of young people’s grievances.
The stand-off ended on July 25, when Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan resigned and the government met the protesters’ core demands. CJI Kant later maintained his original comment had been misquoted and circulated with malicious intent. But the episode had already shaped how a generation of law students saw him — and it would resurface within weeks, at a university convocation.
A convocation nobody wanted to attend
The controversy might have stayed confined to Delhi’s protest circuit had a different decision not been taken hundreds of kilometres away, at NALSAR University of Law in Hyderabad. As the 2026 graduating batch prepared for its convocation, word came that Chief Justice Surya Kant had been invited as chief guest. More than 450 students objected.
In a letter to the university’s Vice-Chancellor, Registrar, and faculty, the graduating cohort cited the cockroach remark and the CJI’s refusal to engage with footage of alleged police excesses as evidence of apathy toward people their own age, and asked the administration to reconsider the invitation — framing it as a shared concern across the batch rather than one group’s grievance.
It was, in substance, an ordinary internal representation, the kind law schools receive fairly often when students disagree with an administrative choice. Nothing in it suggested defiance of any court order or disrespect for the judiciary as an institution; it was addressed to the university’s own governance structure, through the university’s own channels. That distinction — disagreement voiced internally versus outright insubordination — would later become central to the legal battle that followed. But someone outside NALSAR’s administration soon decided the matter required a very different response.
The Bar Council strikes back
On August 13, BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra issued a letter to NALSAR that went well beyond anything the university itself had contemplated. It directed the institution to submit, within three days, a report identifying everyone “instrumental” in organising the campaign against the CJI’s visit, along with the list of student signatories and copies of internal resolutions. In the same letter, every State Bar Council was instructed to stop enrolling NALSAR’s entire 2026 batch as advocates until further notice.
Mishra’s reasoning was blunt: a student who showed “no regard or respect for the highest Judicial Office of the country” could hardly be trusted to become a responsible advocate, teacher, or judge later. He went further, alleging — citing what he called reliable sources — that some faculty had played a role in misleading and instigating students, pointing to alleged internal politics among the teaching staff.
The backlash was immediate. Barring an entire graduating class from enrolling, over a letter objecting to a convocation guest, struck much of the legal community as wildly disproportionate — collective punishment for students who had done nothing more than write to their own administration. Within hours, Mishra issued a second letter softening the position: enrolment could proceed, since the “vast majority” of students had no real role in organising the campaign, though the demand to identify those who had would remain, pending a report from the Vice-Chancellor.
That partial retreat did little to calm things. If anything, it drew more attention to how much authority one office had claimed over students who weren’t lawyers yet — students who sit, structurally, outside the Bar Council’s ordinary jurisdiction, which under the Advocates Act, 1961 runs over enrolled advocates and legal education standards, not the conduct of people years from taking any oath.
Withdrawal, and an uneasy calm
The matter reached the Supreme Court the very next day, when senior advocate K Parameshwar mentioned it before a bench headed by CJI Surya Kant — the same judge whose invitation had triggered the episode. The Chief Justice did not mince words. “It’s a dialogue between students and me,” he said, questioning why the Bar Council needed to insert itself and calling the intervention entirely uncalled for. The bench issued notice and ordered that no punitive action be taken against any NALSAR student or faculty member over the letters.
By then, the Bar Council had already begun to retreat. The entire order — including the demand to identify students — was withdrawn. Mishra followed with a public clarification, acknowledging that dissent has a place in a democracy and expressing regret if his words had hurt students’ feelings. The Council later formally closed its proceedings against the batch, noting they had played no role in any disturbance.
On paper, the crisis was over within 48 hours. In practice, it was only getting started.
The row spreads: NLSIU’s cancelled convocation
Word of what happened in Hyderabad travelled fast through India’s tightly networked law schools. At the National Law School of India University in Bengaluru — where the sitting Chief Justice traditionally serves as ex-officio Chancellor and personally confers degrees — students and alumni got there first. In a statement dated August 15, NLSIU’s graduating batch, current students, and alumni objected to both CJI Surya Kant and Mishra attending their own convocation, expressed solidarity with NALSAR, and demanded an unconditional apology. More than 700 people eventually signed on.
The university tried to broker a resolution — CJI Kant reportedly spent some 90 minutes in dialogue with NLSIU students — but no middle ground emerged. On August 27, NLSIU announced its 34th Annual Convocation, scheduled for September 12, would not be held at all, citing “unavoidable circumstances.” Graduates would instead receive degrees in absentia.
The cancellation drew a mixed reaction even from sympathetic quarters. A statement from the student bar council at National Law University, Delhi, backed NLSIU students’ right to object but questioned whether an entire ceremony needed to disappear, arguing a “graduating batch must have the autonomy and freedom to express its collective views” on their own convocation without that costing them the ceremony itself. A month-old Hyderabad controversy had, by late August, reached one of the country’s most prestigious law schools — and it hadn’t even reached the courts yet in its most consequential form.
Taking it to court: Mihira Sood v. Bar Council of India
Even after the Bar Council backed down, two NALSAR alumni — Mihira Sood and a co-petitioner — felt the episode couldn’t simply fade away. Through advocate-on-record Rupali Francesca Samuel, they filed a writ petition asking the Supreme Court to quash the two August 13 letters and formally inquire into how they came to be issued, including whether the Bar Council’s full Council had ever actually authorised Mishra to act as he did.
Their argument rested on a close reading of the Advocates Act, 1961. Section 24A, they pointed out, lays down an exhaustive — not illustrative — list of grounds for refusing enrolment: conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude, conviction under the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, or dismissal from state service on a charge of moral turpitude. Participation in a student campaign appears nowhere on that list. Treating it as grounds for withholding enrolment anyway, the petition argued, meant the Bar Council had “acted ultra vires the Advocates Act, 1961” — stepping outside the powers the statute confers.
The petition also drew on Sections 6 and 7 to argue that enrolment decisions belong to State Bar Councils in the first instance, with the national body stepping in only when a state council refuses enrolment and refers the matter upward — never as a first-mover directing every state council at once. It also framed the students’ letter as protected speech under Article 19(1)(a), warning that threatening regulatory scrutiny over such expression creates a chilling effect that could deter future dissent through lawful means.
The bench took the plea seriously enough to issue notice on the spot and grant interim protection that same day. But the petitioners wanted more than a temporary reprieve — they wanted a definitive ruling on where the Bar Council’s authority actually stops. Three weeks later, they got one.
The verdict: defining where the Bar Council’s writ ends
Delivering its ruling, the same three-judge bench held that the Bar Council simply has no statutory power to regulate how law students conduct themselves. That authority, the Court said, belongs to the educational institution in which a student is enrolled, exercised under that institution’s own rules. The Bar Council’s writ, the bench made clear, begins only once a graduate becomes an advocate and enters the statutory framework governing the profession; anything short of that lies outside its reach.
Acting on that reasoning, the Court set aside both of Mishra’s letters, along with any communications that had modified them — even though the Bar Council had already withdrawn everything within hours of issuing it. The point, evidently, was not to leave the underlying legal question unresolved just because the immediate harm had passed; the bench wanted the position stated clearly enough that no future chairman could attempt something similar. The interim protection granted on August 14 was made absolute.
From the bench, CJI Kant put the underlying principle plainly, agreeing with senior counsel’s submission that the regulator “has no jurisdiction or statutory competence to go into that,” and describing oversight of student conduct as falling squarely within the university’s own domain. At the same time, the Court didn’t strip the Bar Council of its real functions: it retains full authority to prescribe standards of legal education, and once today’s students become enrolled advocates, ordinary disciplinary jurisdiction over their professional conduct applies as usual. What it cannot do is treat participation in a peaceful campus campaign as professional misconduct, years before any oath is taken.
For NALSAR’s batch, the ruling closed a loop that had technically stayed open since mid-August. For everyone else watching — students, administrators, and future Bar Council office-bearers alike — it left a considerably clearer map of where regulatory authority over legal education actually ends.
A chairman under the scanner
The episode did not stay confined to a single order and its reversal; it opened wider questions about the Bar Council’s own internal governance. A separate public interest litigation, filed by advocate Yogamaya M.G. through advocate Deepak Prakash, challenged Mishra’s occupation of the chairman’s post after roughly twelve years, well beyond the two-year term under Bar Council rules, and flagged a possible conflict of interest given his position as a sitting MP. The plea sought his removal, time-bound fresh elections, and a financial audit of the Council’s affairs.
Hearing that plea on September 2, a day before the NALSAR verdict, the same bench reminded Mishra his position was only a “pro tem” arrangement pending a properly elected Council, rejecting any suggestion his tenure could run until 2030. Taken together, the message from the Court over consecutive days was hard to miss: authority within the profession’s regulatory apparatus has defined limits, in both scope and duration.
Why this verdict matters
Strip away the personalities involved, and what remains is a significant statement about institutional boundaries in Indian legal education. Regulatory bodies — medical councils, engineering councils, bar councils — periodically test the edges of their statutory mandates, especially when student behaviour touches on the reputation of the profession they oversee. The NALSAR ruling gives future litigants and regulators an unambiguous precedent: unless a statute says otherwise, disciplinary authority over students belongs to the institution educating them, not the professional body waiting to receive them once they graduate.
There is also a free-expression dimension worth noting. The petitioners’ case rested substantially on the idea that a peaceful, internal representation to one’s own university — even one involving a sitting Chief Justice — is ordinary protected speech, not evidence of unfitness for a legal career. By granting swift interim relief and later a final, reasoned verdict, the Court effectively endorsed that framing without needing to dwell on it as the central holding.
Finally, the episode is a reminder of how quickly a single remark, made in an entirely different context, can ripple outward — from a courtroom aside about “bogus advocates,” to a mass movement with millions of followers, to a ministerial resignation, to a convocation dispute, to a cancelled ceremony at another university, to a Supreme Court judgment about the outer limits of professional regulation. Few involved at each stage could have predicted where the chain would end. But the Court used the occasion to say something that will likely outlast the controversy itself: institutional power does not always extend as far as its holders like to believe.
The aftermath
For NALSAR’s 2026 batch, life moves on much as it would have anyway — enrolment processed, careers begun, the controversy fading into campus folklore. For the Bar Council, the ruling leaves a more lasting mark: a clear judicial statement that its considerable powers over India’s legal profession do not stretch to policing what students say before they have earned the right to call themselves advocates. And for Chief Justice Surya Kant, the case closes an unusually personal chapter — one in which he was, across a matter of months, both the source of student anger and the judge who ruled that responding to it was never his regulator’s business