The BCI's directive came after a student campaign questioned a proposed invitation to the CJI for the university's convocation.
‘Who are they to interfere?’
During the hearing, CJI Kant asked the BCI to refrain from interfering in the matter, describing it as an issue between him and the students.
"Absolutely uncalled for. I myself was a student who was actively engaged in protests. It's a dialogue between me and students; who are they (BCI) to interfere?" CJI Kant said, as quoted by NDTV.
The CJI also recalled his own experience of participating in student protests.
Supreme Court seeks BCI response
The Supreme Court sought a response from the BCI on its directive and asked the regulatory body to refrain from taking any punitive action against the students or faculty members.
The observations came after a plea challenging the BCI circular was mentioned before the court seeking an urgent listing.
BCI says circular withdrawn
The counsel appearing for the BCI told the court that the circular directing State Bar Councils to withhold the enrolment of the NALSAR graduates had been withdrawn.
The matter concerns the proposed participation of CJI Surya Kant in the university's convocation and a subsequent student campaign questioning the invitation.
BCI seeks report from NALSAR
The Bar Council of India (BCI) has directed every State Bar Council not to enrol students graduating from Hyderabad's NALSAR University of Law in 2026 as advocates until further orders.
BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra said the directive applies to all students who obtained their law degrees from NALSAR this year.
The decision comes amid a dispute over a campaign by a section of graduating students against the university's reported proposal to invite Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as the chief guest at its forthcoming convocation.
The BCI has given NALSAR three days to submit an authenticated report detailing the events surrounding the campaign.
Students asked to be identified
The council had asked the university to identify those who were allegedly involved in initiating, organising, coordinating or mobilising the campaign.
NALSAR had also been asked to provide copies of representations, petitions, memoranda and other communications submitted to university authorities concerning the invitation, along with the complete list of signatories maintained in its official records.
In a strongly worded statement, the BCI had said students of law were expected to respect the country's highest judicial office and suggested that those involved in such conduct could be unsuitable for entry into the legal profession.
The council had further argued that conduct involving strikes and boycotts could damage the image and dignity of the legal profession.
BCI raises allegations of faculty involvement
Mishra, who is also a Rajya Sabha MP from the country's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), alleged, citing what he described as "some reliable sources", that there was groupism and internal political activity among sections of NALSAR's academic staff.
He further alleged that some teachers had actively "misled, instigated and misguided" students.
The BCI described the matter as serious and said that, as the regulator of legal education, it could not remain a "mute spectator".
Why did NALSAR students object?
The controversy began after a group of graduating students submitted a representation to the Vice-Chancellor, Registrar and professors, urging the university to reconsider the reported invitation to CJI Surya Kant.
The students argued that the convocation should reflect NALSAR's stated commitment to constitutional rights, access to justice and reasoned engagement with grievances.
Their objection was linked to remarks reportedly made by CJI Kant during Supreme Court proceedings concerning alleged police action against protesters at Delhi's Jantar Mantar.
Jantar Mantar protest at centre of dispute
The proceedings followed a July 20 "Chalo Sansad" demonstration organised by the Cockroach Janta Party.
Protesters had raised several issues, including concerns over the NEET examination and the functioning of the National Testing Agency (NTA).
The protesters attempted to march towards Parliament, resulting in clashes with security personnel.
Two days later, a lawyer sought urgent listing of a petition alleging police excesses against the protesters.
The matter was mentioned before a Supreme Court bench headed by CJI Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana.
The lawyer alleged that students had been subjected to police brutality and told the court that video evidence was available.
During the exchange, CJI Kant reportedly said, "don't waste our time and yours" and "we don't want to watch any videos".
The remarks subsequently became a point of contention for the NALSAR students who opposed the proposed invitation.