NALSAR row: Young lawyers, CJP take protest to Bar Council of India's door

A group of lawyers on Thursday protested outside the Bar Council of India (BCI) headquarters in New Delhi, demanding the resignation of Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra over the council’s now-withdrawn directive barring the enrolment of the 2026 graduating batch of NALSAR University of Law.

The protest was organised by the All India Young Advocates Association and backed by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), which has been at the centre of the student mobilisation following Chief Justice of India Surya Kant’s remarks referring to unemployed young Indians as cockroaches.

Around 10–15 lawyers gathered outside the BCI office and raised slogans against Mishra.

The protest comes days after the BCI directed State Bar Councils not to enrol NALSAR’s graduating batch after some students opposed the CJI’s participation in the university’s convocation. The directive was withdrawn within hours following criticism from sections of the legal fraternity.

The BCI later said the vast majority of students were innocent and should not be made to suffer for the alleged actions of a few.

The controversy also drew criticism from the Supreme Court. CJI Surya Kant said students were entitled to peacefully express their views and described the issue as "a matter of dialogue between students and me".

Mishra subsequently apologised to law students, saying he regretted any communication that may have hurt their feelings. He also said students should remain free to decide whether to attend or abstain from convocations and urged that the controversy not be given a “political or extraneous colour”.

The apology, however, has failed to end demands for his resignation.

Advocate Umesh Kumar, who participated in Thursday’s protest, said the NALSAR episode had highlighted wider concerns about the BCI’s functioning and its role in addressing issues faced by lawyers.

“Name one thing the BCI Chairman has done for the welfare of law students or lawyers,” Kumar said, alleging that the council had remained silent on attacks and deaths involving lawyers while taking an active position in matters he described as political.

He said the protesters wanted the BCI to focus on issues including lawyer welfare, stipends, chambers, working conditions, and the regulation of law colleges.

Advocate Raman Sharma said the protest was essentially a movement by lawyers against their own apex regulatory body.

“It is fine if the Cockroach Janta Party has supported us, but our own fraternity should have thought about it,” Sharma said, adding that the immediate concern was to highlight shortcomings within the BCI and press for legitimate demands.

Sharma also questioned Mishra’s long tenure at the helm of the BCI and raised concerns over the declining space for criminal law practice.

“The Chairman has held his position for 14 years; what has he actually done for the legal fraternity?” he asked, arguing that the BCI should have taken a stronger position on issues affecting criminal lawyers and the implementation of the new criminal laws.

The demand for Mishra’s resignation has also received support from sections of the organised Bar. The Bombay Bar Association has criticised his handling of the NALSAR episode and called for his resignation.

For the protesters, therefore, the NALSAR controversy is no longer just about an enrolment directive that was withdrawn. It has become a rallying point for long-standing grievances over lawyer welfare, regulation of legal education, and the functioning of the BCI.