Withdraw the Arbitrary and Ultra Vires Letter of the Bar Council of India (BCI:D:5449/2026
The Issue
To
Shri Manan Kumar Mishra
Chairman, Bar Council of India
21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area, New Delhi – 110 002
Why this petition matters
On 13 August 2026, the Chairman of the Bar Council of India issued letter BCI:D:5449/2026 to the Vice-Chancellor of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, and to all State Bar Councils. The letter sought a detailed report identifying students, faculty, and others “instrumental” in a campaign relating to the proposed participation of the Chief Justice of India at the university’s convocation, and directed that no 2026 NALSAR law graduate be enrolled as an advocate by any State Bar Council until further orders.
Although the blanket enrolment ban was later modified the same evening after public criticism, the original letter remains on record. Its demand for identification of signatories and organisers, its characterisation of student representations as conduct reflecting unfitness for the legal profession, and the continued factual inquiry still create a chilling effect on free speech, academic freedom, and the statutory enrolment process. Collective measures of this nature are unreasonable, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction.
We, the undersigned citizens, law students, advocates, academics, and members of the public, call upon the Chairman and the Bar Council of India to immediately and completely withdraw letter BCI:D:5449/2026 dated 13 August 2026 in its entirety.
The letter is legally unsustainable for the following reasons:
Absence of jurisdiction for a blanket interim ban or collective surveillance
The Advocates Act, 1961, confers on the Bar Council of India powers to lay down standards of professional conduct and legal education (Sections 7(1)(b), 7(1)(h), 7(1)(i) and 49) and general supervision over State Bar Councils. It does not authorise the imposition of a collective interim bar on the enrolment of an entire graduating class, nor does it create a new ground of disqualification by association.
Enrolment is governed by Sections 24 and 24A. Disqualification under Section 24A is limited to specific statutory grounds (conviction for certain offences, etc.).
An interim freeze covering every 2026 NALSAR graduate, without individual notice or hearing, exceeds the statutory scheme and is ultra vires.
Arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power
The letter treats participation in a representation seeking reconsideration of an invitation as conduct demonstrating “no regard or respect for the highest Judicial Office” and rendering the participant a “liability on the profession.” This is collective guilt by association. The subsequent modification of the enrolment direction—acknowledging that the vast majority of students were innocent—itself demonstrates that the original sweeping measure was disproportionate and based on incomplete or secondary material rather than verified individual facts.
Violation of principles of natural justice
No notice, no opportunity to be heard, and no individualised assessment preceded the direction that enrolment applications of an entire batch be deferred. Career-determining regulatory action cannot be taken on the basis of media reports and social-media material alone.
Chilling effect on freedom of speech and academic freedom
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution protects the right of students and faculty to express reasoned disagreement with institutional decisions, including the choice of a chief guest. A representation submitted by approximately 450 students requesting the university to reconsider an invitation, based on publicly reported remarks, is legitimate expression.
Demanding lists of signatories, “principal organisers,” office-bearers of student bodies, and any faculty or outsiders involved, with the prospect of further statutory examination affecting enrolment, converts peaceful petitioning into a potential professional liability. This is incompatible with the very constitutional values that legal education is meant to foster.
Mischaracterisation of the facts
The communications from students were representations addressed to university authorities seeking reconsideration of a proposed invitation. They did not, on the material publicly available, constitute organised intimidation, obstruction of an institutional function, or a call for disruption. The letter’s equation of such expression with professional unfitness is neither accurate nor proportionate.
Overreach into university autonomy and internal academic life
Allegations of “groupism and dirty politics” among academic staff, and directions to identify faculty involvement in “misleading, instigating and misguiding” students, intervene in the internal functioning of a university without any demonstrated statutory basis under the Advocates Act for such inquiry at the stage of a student representation.
Even after the partial modification lifting the blanket enrolment ban, the continued demand for identification of individuals and the framework of the original letter remain capable of being used to single out students and teachers for further regulatory scrutiny solely on account of protected expression. That framework must be withdrawn in full.
We therefore demand that the Bar Council of India:
Completely withdraw letter BCI:D:5449/2026 dated 13 August 2026;
Cease any inquiry or process directed at identifying or examining students, faculty, or others solely for having signed, organised, or supported representations concerning the invitation of a chief guest;
Affirm that peaceful, reasoned expression of views by law students on matters of institutional or constitutional concern does not, by itself, constitute a ground for deferring or denying enrolment under the Advocates Act; and
Ensure that any future regulatory action concerning individual conduct is taken strictly in accordance with the Advocates Act, the rules framed thereunder, and the principles of natural justice, after due notice and opportunity of hearing.
Legal education must encourage critical reasoning and debate. Regulatory power must not be used to punish it.
Sign this petition to urge the Chairman and the Bar Council of India to withdraw the letter in full and to uphold the constitutional values of free speech, natural justice, and academic freedom.
48
The Issue
To
Shri Manan Kumar Mishra
Chairman, Bar Council of India
21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area, New Delhi – 110 002
Why this petition matters
On 13 August 2026, the Chairman of the Bar Council of India issued letter BCI:D:5449/2026 to the Vice-Chancellor of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, and to all State Bar Councils. The letter sought a detailed report identifying students, faculty, and others “instrumental” in a campaign relating to the proposed participation of the Chief Justice of India at the university’s convocation, and directed that no 2026 NALSAR law graduate be enrolled as an advocate by any State Bar Council until further orders.
Although the blanket enrolment ban was later modified the same evening after public criticism, the original letter remains on record. Its demand for identification of signatories and organisers, its characterisation of student representations as conduct reflecting unfitness for the legal profession, and the continued factual inquiry still create a chilling effect on free speech, academic freedom, and the statutory enrolment process. Collective measures of this nature are unreasonable, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction.
We, the undersigned citizens, law students, advocates, academics, and members of the public, call upon the Chairman and the Bar Council of India to immediately and completely withdraw letter BCI:D:5449/2026 dated 13 August 2026 in its entirety.
The letter is legally unsustainable for the following reasons:
Absence of jurisdiction for a blanket interim ban or collective surveillance
The Advocates Act, 1961, confers on the Bar Council of India powers to lay down standards of professional conduct and legal education (Sections 7(1)(b), 7(1)(h), 7(1)(i) and 49) and general supervision over State Bar Councils. It does not authorise the imposition of a collective interim bar on the enrolment of an entire graduating class, nor does it create a new ground of disqualification by association.
Enrolment is governed by Sections 24 and 24A. Disqualification under Section 24A is limited to specific statutory grounds (conviction for certain offences, etc.).
An interim freeze covering every 2026 NALSAR graduate, without individual notice or hearing, exceeds the statutory scheme and is ultra vires.
Arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power
The letter treats participation in a representation seeking reconsideration of an invitation as conduct demonstrating “no regard or respect for the highest Judicial Office” and rendering the participant a “liability on the profession.” This is collective guilt by association. The subsequent modification of the enrolment direction—acknowledging that the vast majority of students were innocent—itself demonstrates that the original sweeping measure was disproportionate and based on incomplete or secondary material rather than verified individual facts.
Violation of principles of natural justice
No notice, no opportunity to be heard, and no individualised assessment preceded the direction that enrolment applications of an entire batch be deferred. Career-determining regulatory action cannot be taken on the basis of media reports and social-media material alone.
Chilling effect on freedom of speech and academic freedom
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution protects the right of students and faculty to express reasoned disagreement with institutional decisions, including the choice of a chief guest. A representation submitted by approximately 450 students requesting the university to reconsider an invitation, based on publicly reported remarks, is legitimate expression.
Demanding lists of signatories, “principal organisers,” office-bearers of student bodies, and any faculty or outsiders involved, with the prospect of further statutory examination affecting enrolment, converts peaceful petitioning into a potential professional liability. This is incompatible with the very constitutional values that legal education is meant to foster.
Mischaracterisation of the facts
The communications from students were representations addressed to university authorities seeking reconsideration of a proposed invitation. They did not, on the material publicly available, constitute organised intimidation, obstruction of an institutional function, or a call for disruption. The letter’s equation of such expression with professional unfitness is neither accurate nor proportionate.
Overreach into university autonomy and internal academic life
Allegations of “groupism and dirty politics” among academic staff, and directions to identify faculty involvement in “misleading, instigating and misguiding” students, intervene in the internal functioning of a university without any demonstrated statutory basis under the Advocates Act for such inquiry at the stage of a student representation.
Even after the partial modification lifting the blanket enrolment ban, the continued demand for identification of individuals and the framework of the original letter remain capable of being used to single out students and teachers for further regulatory scrutiny solely on account of protected expression. That framework must be withdrawn in full.
We therefore demand that the Bar Council of India:
Completely withdraw letter BCI:D:5449/2026 dated 13 August 2026;
Cease any inquiry or process directed at identifying or examining students, faculty, or others solely for having signed, organised, or supported representations concerning the invitation of a chief guest;
Affirm that peaceful, reasoned expression of views by law students on matters of institutional or constitutional concern does not, by itself, constitute a ground for deferring or denying enrolment under the Advocates Act; and
Ensure that any future regulatory action concerning individual conduct is taken strictly in accordance with the Advocates Act, the rules framed thereunder, and the principles of natural justice, after due notice and opportunity of hearing.
Legal education must encourage critical reasoning and debate. Regulatory power must not be used to punish it.
Sign this petition to urge the Chairman and the Bar Council of India to withdraw the letter in full and to uphold the constitutional values of free speech, natural justice, and academic freedom.
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on 13 August 2026