CJI Surya Kant declines NALSAR convocation invite amid student, BCI row

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant has declined to attend the convocation of National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR) University of Law as chief guest. This comes amid a controversy that began with opposition from a section of students and escalated after the Bar Council of India (BCI) intervened in the matter.

Speaking to TOI after addressing vice-chancellors of national law universities in Jodhpur, CJI Kant said he 'never consented to Nalsar’s invitation' to attend the convocation as chief guest. “Therefore, t question of me attending the convocation does not arise,” he said. It all started when NALSAR had confirmed last week that it had invited the CJI to be the chief guest at its convocation, which is expected to be held in late August or September.

The invitation had faced opposition from various students including 400 NALSAR alumni . They had objected to CJI Kant’s proposed presence in view of his remarks and the proceedings of a Supreme Court hearing concerning the July 20 student march to Parliament.

The controversy over the students’ opposition intensified after BCI chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra intervened. In a letter to the NALSAR vice-chancellor, Mishra sought an inquiry into the students who had opposed the CJI’s presence and called for their identification. The BCI had also threatened action that could have affected the graduates’ enrolment as advocates.

Also read NALSAR Row: Student Bar Council condemns BCI’s withdrawn letter on 2026 batch

The move drew strong criticism, following which the BCI withdrew the letter and expressed regret . The Supreme Court has sought the BCI’s response over the intervention and questioned the regulator’s role in the matter, observing that it had no business involving itself in a dispute concerning the CJI and NALSAR students.

Petitions demand independent inquiry

The CJI-led bench is currently hearing petitions seeking an independent inquiry into the alleged police action against students. The petitions include allegations involving the use of pellet guns and facial-recognition technology to profile protesters, raising concerns over privacy rights.

Students had particularly objected to the bench’s initial refusal to take suo motu cognisance of alleged police excesses. On July 22, an advocate had urged the bench to view video footage of the alleged incidents without filing a formal petition. CJI Kant asked him to file a proper petition setting out his allegations and, when the advocate persisted without producing any document, told him not to waste judicial time.

Similar petitions were subsequently filed and taken up by the CJI-led bench.