CJI, Nalsar students have one query for BCI: ‘Who are you?’ It Is Between Me And Them, Says Surya Kant

CJI, Nalsar students have one query for BCI: ‘Who are you?’ It Is Between Me And Them, Says Surya Kant 

Dhananjay.Mahapatra@timesofindia.com 15.08.2026

New Delhi: Supreme Court on Friday castigated Bar Council of India (BCI) for threatening to deny licence to practice to Hyderabad-based NALSAR university students who opposed CJI Surya Kant as their convocation chief guest, shielded them against coercive action and offered the law graduates a start as legal aid counsel in SC. 

Taking cognizance of the controversy created late last evening by BCI through an unprecedented letter which had to be hastily retracted, a three-judge bench led by CJI Surya Kant said, “This is absolutely uncalled for. BCI has nothing to do with it. The students might have written a letter to me. It is a dialogue between me and students. Who are they (BCI) to unnecessarily create an issue? This action is totally uncalled for.” Senior advocate K Parameshwar sought SC’s urgent intervention in quashing the illegal and arbitrary action of the BCI in seeking to coerce VC of NALSAR University, one of the top law schools, to conduct an investigation and identify students who had opposed CJI’s participation in the convocation as chief guest and issuing the now-withdrawn threat that those identified would be denied registration for licence to practice by all state bar councils.

Can BCI halt enrolment of an entire graduating batch?

Can BCI halt enrolment of an entire graduating batch?

Manan Kumar Mishra

Rizmi Lia M.

Chennai. 15.08.2026

On Thursday, Bar Council of India (BCI) chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, in a letter, directed all State Bar Councils not to enrol any 2026 batch graduate of the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR) until further orders.

The direction came amid an inquiry into a campaign by some students opposing Chief Justice of India Surya Kant’s participation in the NALSAR’s convocation. The BCI chairman sought a factual report from the NALSAR identifying those who initiated, organised, coordinated or mobilised the campaign.

Hours later, the BCI Council modified the direction and said all NALSAR graduates of the 2026 batch could enrol with the State Bar Council of their choice.

This raises questions about the statutory powers of the BCI, the authority of its chairman and whether an entire graduating batch can be subjected to an enrolment restriction over the alleged conduct of some students.

What powers does the BCI have over State Bar Councils?

The Advocates Act, 1961, gives the BCI general supervision and control over State Bar Councils under Section 7(1)(g). Section 48B further permits the BCI, in exercise of this power, to give directions to State Bar Councils or any committee thereof as may appear to it to be necessary. Rule 15 of the BCI Rules provides that, subject to resolutions of the BCI, the chairman exercises general control and supervision over the affairs of the BCI. Rule 18 allows the chairman to pass interim orders in revisional and other matters arising from the BCI’s supervisory jurisdiction.

“The blanket direction stopping the entire 2026 NALSAR batch from enrolling has no statutory basis. Enrolment is primarily the statutory function of the State Bar Councils under the Advocates Act, and there appears to be no specific provision empowering the BCI chairman, acting individually, to suspend the enrolment of an entire batch,” said advocate Manoj Kumar N., a member of the BCI and Bar Council of Kerala.

What does the law say about enrolment?

Section 6(1)(a) entrusts State Bar Councils with admitting persons as advocates on their rolls. Section 24 sets out qualifications for enrolment, while Section 24A provides for certain disqualifications. Sections 25 and 26 deal with the authority and procedure for admission.

“No blanket restrictions can be imposed by the BCI. Every application has to be dealt with independently and if they meet the statutory requirements, they are entitled to be enrolled,” said advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy, member of the Bar Council of Kerala.

Mr. Kumar said the BCI may inquire into individual conduct, but collective punishment cannot ordinarily be imposed on an entire batch for the alleged acts of a few. Pre-enrolment conduct, he said, may become relevant when it attracts a statutory disqualification or affects eligibility but mere expression of an opinion or peaceful protest cannot by itself justify denial of enrolment.

What have courts said?

In Indian Council of Legal Aid & Advice v. Bar Council of India (1995), the Supreme Court struck down a BCI rule barring persons above 45 from enrolment. It held that the BCI could not use its rule-making power under Section 49 to create an additional disqualification not provided for by the Advocates Act.

The court held that substantive questions of enrolment fall within the domain of State Bar Councils, observing that it was “within the exclusive domain of the State Bar Councils” to admit persons to their rolls or remove their names.

What happens now?

The BCI subsequently withdrew the blanket restriction and allowed the NALSAR’s 2026 graduates to enrol with the State Bar Council of their choice. “With the blanket restriction now withdrawn, NALSAR’s 2026 graduates are presently entitled to seek enrolment in the ordinary course,” Mr. Kumar said. He added that any disqualification would have to be based on the Advocates Act and the rules governing enrolment.

Short On Attendance, Full Degree: BCI Opens Door To Legal Practice

Short On Attendance, Full Degree: BCI Opens Door To Legal Practice 

Offers Relaxation For 2025-26 Batch Of Law Grads Covered By SC’s Order

Sugandha.Jha1@timesofindia.com 

New Delhi: A cohort of law graduates across the country from the 2025-26 academic session, caught in an attendance limbo that prevented them from becoming advocates despite having a law degree in hand, can now cross the hurdle, as Bar Council of India (BCI) has created an alternative route for them to complete their enrolment as advocates. 

So far, in order to enrol, the graduates were required to submit an attendance-cum-character certificate. But having been allowed to complete their courses as a one-time measure despite falling short of the prescribed attendance, the students could not be issued certificates by their colleges stating they had fulfilled the attendance requirement. In effect, even though the students had a law degree, they lacked the document needed to enter the profession. This left many educational institutes in a peculiar bind: issuing a certificate showing the required attendance would mean certifying something that was not true. 

Following representations, including from Delhi University’s Law Centre-I Students’ Union, BCI issued a notice on Aug 12 directing all universities imparting law education and state bar councils to issue alternative attendance-cum-character certificates to the affected students without modifying their actual attendance records. 

“Historical attendance records shall not be altered, rewritten or deemed regular,” the notice stated. The certificate will only certify that the student falls within the protected category, as per Supreme Court’s order, and has lawfully completed the course. The alternative certification is intended only “to identify the candidate as falling within the protected class and to confirm lawful completion of the recognised LLB programme,” it read. 

The issue stems from Delhi High Court’s Nov 3, 2025 judgment in the Sushant Rohilla case, which directed that students should not be stopped from taking examinations or progressing solely because of attendance shortage. SC subsequently stayed the relevant direction prospectively on May 26, 2026 and, on July 21, granted one-time protection to students whose academic sessions were underway when the HC judgment was delivered. This meant that students who had fallen short of attendance during this period were allowed to appear for and complete their examinations, but after obtaining their degrees, these students faced a fresh hurdle as they could not produce the mandatory attendance certificate required for enrolment as advocates. BCI said the one-time protection “cannot reasonably be divided into two inconsistent stages” — where the attendance shortage is disregarded for completion of the law degree but revived immediately thereafter to deny entry into the profession. 

It said state bar councils may process applications of eligible candidates “without insisting upon an attendance certificate certifying the ordinarily prescribed percentage of attendance”, where the deficiency relates to the protected academic session. The arrangement is strictly one-time and will apply uniformly to similarly situated candidates across India. It will not constitute a relaxation of attendance requirements for future batches, BCI’s notice stated.

Dr. Ambedkar Law University cancels affiliation for three private law colleges

Dr. Ambedkar Law University cancels affiliation for three private law colleges

The Hindu Bureau

Chennai. 19.07.2026

The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University has cancelled the affiliation of three private law colleges on charges of violating norms governing admission of students.

The Syndicate of the University, in its meeting early this month, passed a resolution cancelling the affiliation given to these colleges in 2025-26, according to a press release. The colleges in question are Thulasi Women’s Law College, Thoothukudi, S. Thangapazham Law College, Tenkasi, and Mukil Law College, Kanniyakumari.

Change in ownership

Sources in the TNDALU said that S. Thangapazham Law College had a change of ownership and the new Trust failed to obtain affiliation for the academic year 2026-27.

The other two colleges had applied for increased intake of students in 2025-26 and had secured provisional affiliation from the University.

As per rules, they had to seek the approval of the Bar Council of India, which had announced a nationwide moratorium on increase of seats or starting of new colleges in August last year.

They had admitted students in anticipation of approval from the Bar Council of India, which was accorded in April 2026, after the moratorium was lifted.

Violation of norms

The release stated that admitting students in anticipation of approval was a clear violation of established norms and rules.

The violation came to light at the time of registration of students for examination, the sources maintained.

The Syndicate, in its resolution, decided to not consider the application submitted by Thulasi Women’s Law College, the press release mentioned.

Remedial measures

However, it has resolved to constitute a committee to work out appropriate remedial measures for students who are already admitted keeping in mind their interest, it added.

Law colleges in city face delays over Bar Council recognition; fines mount

Law colleges in city face delays over Bar Council recognition; fines mount

 Yogita.Rao@timesofindia.com 12.07.2026

Mumbai : A majority of law colleges across Mumbai are in a bind over a new state govt requirement that makes the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) recognition letter mandatory for participation in the CET cell’s admission process. 

Due to a procedural mismatch between the two statutory authorities, Mumbai University (MU) and the BCI, private colleges are forced to pay a fine of up to Rs 8 lakh to obtain BCI approval. Colleges now plan to meet the higher education minister, Chandrakant Patil, to seek a relaxation of the requirement. Meanwhile, 30 colleges, which were denied affiliation certificates, are yet to get relief from the MU. 

Together, the two issues have raised concerns over delays in this year’s admission process. A principal said ‘the university’s affiliation certificate for the academic session was issued to several colleges only recently, when the BCI process required them to upload the certificate by Dec 31’. 

“Although the delay is entirely beyond the control of the colleges, the BCI is levying a late fee fine for delayed compliance, which is Rs 4 lakh per programme. Colleges offering both the 3-year and the 5-year LLB are burdened with an unfair financial liability of Rs 8 lakh,” they mentioned in a letter to Patil. 

The MU, in a letter written to the BCI, mentioned that the affiliation certificates are granted in June every year, as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016. MU, therefore, appealed to the council to exempt colleges from the imposition of a late fee. No relaxation has been granted by the BCI yet. The problem is faced only by private and unaided colleges that have to seek extension of affiliation from the university every year. 

Most aided colleges, which enjoy permanent affiliation, have already obtained the BCI recognition letter. Earlier the BCI followed a manual process. Though similar clashes between the timelines of the two statutory authorities have occurred in the past, the shift to an online approval process two years ago has made it even more difficult for colleges, said a principal. “It will be a recurring  problem in Maharashtra universities. Either the universities will have to issue the affiliation certificates before Dec 31, or the BCI will have to extend their deadline,” he added.