BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra apologised to law students over the NALSAR enrolment-bar row, saying an expression of regret “is not a matter of prestige or ego,” amid backlash from NALSAR and NLSIU.
New Delhi: Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra has apologised to law students over the controversy arising from his direction barring the enrolment of NALSAR University of Law’s 2026 graduating batch, saying an expression of regret “is not a matter of prestige or ego”, a climbdown that followed sustained criticism not only from NALSAR but from the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru.
The apology
In a letter issued on Independence Day, Mishra expressed regret if anything he had said or written in connection with the controversy had hurt law students, without naming any university or referring directly to the specific dispute. He wrote:
“If anything connected with the present controversy, any of my words, or letter, has hurt the feelings of our law students, I sincerely regret and apologise for the same.”
Framing the gesture as an acknowledgment rather than a concession, he added:
“There should be no hesitation in saying so. An expression of regret is not a matter of prestige or ego. It is simply an acknowledgment that the feelings and concerns of our students matter.”
READ MORE: BCI Withdraws Order Barring Enrolment Of NALSAR 2026 Batch Over Anti-CJI Suryakant Campaign
How the controversy unfolded
The apology is the latest turn in a controversy that has run for the better part of a week and drawn in two of the country’s premier national law universities.
It began when a section of NALSAR’s 2026 graduating batch objected to a proposal to invite Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as the chief guest at the institution’s convocation, citing his conduct and remarks in the proceedings concerning the police action against student protesters in Delhi. In response, the BCI, in a communication signed by Mishra, directed that no NALSAR student who had graduated in 2026 be enrolled by any State Bar Council as an advocate until further orders, a measure that would have blocked an entire cohort from entering the profession over the actions of some of its members.
That direction drew immediate and widespread criticism, and the BCI withdrew it within hours, recording that the vast majority of the students were “innocent” and not party to the campaign, while turning its focus to allegations that some faculty members and outsiders had instigated the students. But the withdrawal did not end the matter. The Chairman continued to face criticism on two counts — that the enrolment bar had been imposed in excess of the BCI’s powers, and that the language of his communications, which had characterised the campaign as “nasty politics,” was itself objectionable.
The backlash widens to NLSIU
What began as a NALSAR dispute has since broadened. Students and alumni of NLSIU, Bengaluru, condemned what they termed the BCI’s illegal action against the NALSAR students, and students at NALSAR itself, through the student council, denounced the enrolment bar as malicious and framed the episode as a question of the right to dissent. Students and alumni of both institutions had demanded an unconditional apology from Mishra. NLSIU students also raised objections to Mishra’s own participation in their convocation ceremony.
It is against that widening backlash, spanning two of the National Law Universities and invoking the freedom to dissent, that the Chairman’s letter of regret has come.
The questions the episode leaves
The apology addresses the sentiment but not necessarily the substance, and two threads remain live.
The first is the scope of the BCI’s power. The criticism that the enrolment bar exceeded the Council’s authority goes to a genuine legal question, whether the BCI, as the regulator of legal education and the profession under the Advocates Act, 1961, may bar the enrolment of an entire graduating batch as a disciplinary or coercive measure, and on what basis. The withdrawal of the order rendered that question academic in this instance, but the manner in which the power was invoked has left it hanging.
The second is the inquiry the BCI set in motion against the faculty. Having withdrawn the action against the students, the Council had asked the NALSAR Vice-Chancellor to identify the persons “principally instrumental” in organising the campaign, and indicated that a final decision would follow. Whether that inquiry proceeds, and what a regulator investigating teachers over a students’ representation would mean for academic freedom, is the strand the apology does not resolve.
For now, the graduating students of NALSAR are free to enrol, and the head of the profession’s regulator has expressed regret — an outcome that quiets the immediate row while leaving the underlying questions about the reach of the BCI’s authority for another day.
