In Mihira Sood & Anr. vs. Bar Council of India & Ors. (2026), Supreme Court's 3-Judge Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana passed an order dated August 14, 2026, wherein, it directed:"no punitive action shall be taken against the students or Faculty of NALSAR University of Law at the instance of Bar Council of India or any State Bar Council in respect of the incidents mentioned in the subject letters." The petitioner was represented by senior advocate K. Parameshwar and
advocate-on-record Rupali Francesca Samuel. Upon hearing the counsel, the
Court took the matter on board and issued notice, returnable
on September 3, 2026. Radhika Gautam, the counsel appearing on behalf of
Bar Council of India (BCI) accepted the notice. Gautam informed the Court
that "the offending Circulars have since been withdrawn." The court's
order reads:"4. Be that as it may, let the counter affidavit be filed
within two weeks." It all began with the way CJI dismissively responded when the matter of police brutality at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi on July 20, 2026 was mentioned before his bench. This brutality took place during the Sansad Chalo march organized by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and student and youth groups demanding the resignation of the Education Minister for national examination leak scam. The NALSAR students have expressed their strong disapproval of CJI's insensitive approach by protesting against the participation of CJI as the chief guest for their convocation. They wrote, “We feel that receiving our degrees from a dignitary whose recent public conduct, as reported, appears dismissive of serious allegations of police brutality against protesting citizens sits uncomfortably with what we have been taught to value during our time at NALSAR.” Their statement of condemnation stated that Section 7(1)(b), 7(1)(g), 7(1)(h), 7(1)(i) of the Advocates Act of 1961, establishes the functions of the BCI. "These provisions, the ones applicable to the University are only regarding the BCI's function to set standards for professional conduct and promotion of legal education. Section 24A of the Advocates Act, 1961 restricts disqualifications from enrolment strictly to convictions for criminal offences, which did not take place in the present case. To then direct State Bar Councils to restrict the enrolment of students from the Batch of 2026 does not align with the BCI's statutory functions."
Subsequent to the Court's order, nation-wide condemnation, and apprehending protest from students and youth, Manan Kumar Mishra, chairman, BCI issued an apology to law students in a letter issued on Independence Day amidst bitter criticism from students of NALSAR and National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bangalore regarding BCI's arbitrary and unauthorised order in the backdrop of the row surrounding CJI's participation in NALSAR's 2026 convocation. Mishra's statement reads:"If anything connected with the present controversy, any of my words, or letter, has hurt the feelings of our law students, I sincerely regret and apologise for the same. There should be no hesitation in saying so. An expression of regret is not a matter of prestige or ego. It is simply an acknowledgment that the feelings and concerns of our students matter".
BCI chairman had issued an order dated stop the enrolment for NALSAR's graduating batch of 2026 after they objected to the participation of CJI Surya Kant as the chief guest for their convocation. NALSAR's Student Bar Council had demanded a public apology from Mishra. NLSIU's graduating students, current students and alumni had also issued a joint statement in this regard. NLSIU, Bengaluru students have also rejected the presence of the BCI chairperson and the CJI at their own convocation. Mishra's statement reads:"No student should be compelled to attend, and no student should feel compelled to abstain. My only appeal is that the decision should be taken independently, after considering the matter in its entirety and according to their own judgment".
Notably, on July 23, 2026, as chairman of BCI, Mishra had issued a public appeal to the country's legal fraternity, academicians, professionals and intellectuals, urging them to counter what he described as "anti-social and anti-national forces" who are attempting to exploit ongoing student protests to destabilise the country". The press release titled "An Appeal to the Intellectuals of the Country" reads:"Experts in stone pelting have been brought from Jammu and Kashmir and other states into Delhi... These miscreants are reportedly paid substantial sums to create disorder, assault police personnel, and damage public vehicles and property."
The
case was mentioned on August 14. When the matter was mentioned, the CJI-led bench observed:"This is
absolutely uncalled for..It a dialogue between me and students."The bench added: “I myself, during
student days, was involved in student activities. Peacefully they are
raising voice, they should be allowed. Even if they are wrong, assuming,
they have the right to protest. Who can stop them?. Why Bar Council or
any other body should interfere?”.
It is quite likely that the CJI will assign the case
to some other bench to comply with the Latin maxim nemo judex in causa sua i.e. no one should be a judge in his or her own case incorporated in The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct
adopted in 2002, endorsed by UN resolution in 2006 and reiterated in
Regulation 5 (2) of Draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence
in Courts, 2026 and The Restatement of Values of Judicial Life,
the judicial standards and principles to be observed and followed by the
Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts which was unanimously
adopted in Full Court Meeting of the Supreme Court of India held on May
7, 1997.
No comments:
Post a Comment