New Delhi [India], August 14 (ANI): Senior Supreme Court Advocate and BJP leader Senior Supreme Court Advocate on Friday said that many practitioners were “taken aback” by a decision attempting to block the registration of students who merely expressed a viewpoint or protested.
Speaking to ANI, he highlighted that the institution involved in the controversy is a premier law college. Kohli further stressed that freedom of speech, expression, and peaceful protest are fundamental guarantees under the Constitution of India.
“As a practising senior advocate, we were all, many of us were absolutely taken aback by the kind of direction that came from the Bar Council of India, which had decided to stop the registration of such students who expressed a point of view or protested about the convocation ceremony. It’s coming from, after all, one of the law colleges, a premier law college. As practising advocates, we understand that, after all, the right to freedom of expression and speech is a protected right under the Constitution of India; it’s a guarantee. The right to protest peacefully is also recognised,” he said.
“Now, if a set of students or any person who is a citizen of India is expressing their point of view in a peaceful manner, how can there be such punitive action against them? And certainly, what will impact their future? ” he questioned.
Commending Chief Justice of India Surya Kant for intervening in the situation, he said, “On what basis did the Bar Council of India take that decision, and then decide to withdraw it? Only the Bar Council of India will explain. As far as the courts are concerned, even the Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant, clearly and unequivocally spoke against it in the court today and has issued notice on such a petition.”
Echoing similar sentiments, Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay maintained that the BCI holds no jurisdictional role in student expressions at premier legal education centres like NALSAR.
“NALSAR is one of the premier legal education centres in our country. Very good advocates have emerged from there. And if some students there wanted to express their views, which they did, I feel that the Bar Council of India (BCI) has no role in that. Nowhere does the BCI have any role in this. And the letter that the BCI had issued, they have taken it back. So I feel this controversy should now come to an end,” he emphasised.
However, Advocate Gyanendra Singh offered a nuanced perspective, noting that while the BCI Chairman’s actions overstepped boundaries, the manner of student protest also crossed a line.
“What NALSAR’s students did was wrong, and at the same time, what the Chairman of the Bar Council of India did was also wrong. Freedom of speech and expression is a protected right, and it cannot be curtailed by any executive order other than through law. What the Chief Justice of India has done is very commendable. And what the students did was wrong, because when the Chief Justice of India’s dignity is not upheld, lawyers’ dignity will not be upheld either,” he said.
Earlier, CJP Surya Kant objected to the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) circulars against NALSAR University of Law students over their objections to his proposed participation as chief guest at the university’s convocation. The CJI questioned the BCI’s authority to intervene in what he described as a dialogue between him and the students.
“BCI has nothing to do with this. We are with you. Students have written a letter to me. It’s a dialogue between students and me. Who are they to unnecessarily issue a circular?” the CJI said.
The BCI subsequently withdrew the enrolment direction within hours, saying its deliberations showed that the vast majority of the 2026 graduates were innocent and had not intended to participate in any move to disrespect the CJI. It retained the possibility of further action based on the Vice-Chancellor’s report. (ANI)
Related reading
