NALSAR Convocation Row: Why Questions Are Being Raised Over BCI Chief Manan Kumar Mishra

The controversy surrounding the NALSAR convocation in Hyderabad has put the Bar Council of India (BCI) under renewed scrutiny after the regulatory body briefly directed state bar councils not to enrol graduates of the university’s 2026 batch as advocates, only to withdraw the order a few hours later.

The decision has raised questions not only about the BCI’s authority in matters of enrolment but also about the manner in which such decisions are taken. The episode has further drawn attention to the functioning of the regulatory body, which has been headed by senior advocate and BJP MP Manan Kumar Mishra for the past 14 years.

The BCI issued its directive on Thursday, instructing all state bar councils to stop the enrolment of NALSAR’s 2026 graduates until further notice. The decision was subsequently withdrawn following criticism from members of the legal community.

ALSO READ: 'Not A Matter Of Ego': BCI Chief Apologises To Law Students Over NALSAR Row

Why did BCI stop the enrolment of NALSAR graduates?

A section of graduating students had reportedly objected to the university’s proposal to invite Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as the chief guest. The opposition was linked to remarks made by the CJI during a Supreme Court hearing, which led to the start of the CJP and student protests at Jantar Mantar.

In response, the BCI intervened and issued a directive instructing all state bar councils not to enrol 2026 graduates of NALSAR as advocates until further notice. The fact that the directive was withdrawn within hours added to questions over the basis for the original order.

After detailed deliberation, the @barcouncilindia has modified its earlier directions concerning @NALSAR_Official.

All 2026 passed-out students of NALSAR will now be entitled to seek enrolment with the State Bar Council of their choice. The factual inquiry will continue, and… pic.twitter.com/uJPkpHaOXj

— Manan Kumar Mishra (@MishraManan01) August 13, 2026

Why is Manan Kumar Mishra under scrutiny?

The controversy has also brought renewed focus on BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, who has been associated with the organisation’s leadership for the past 14 years.

Mishra has previously contested elections on BSP and Congress tickets before later becoming associated with the BJP. His long tenure at the BCI has now come under the spotlight as questions are being raised over the council’s decision-making and regulatory functioning.

ALSO READ: 'They Have Right To Protest': CJI Surya Kant Orders No Punitive Action Against NALSAR Graduates, Demands BCI Response

However, the concerns surrounding the BCI are not limited to the NALSAR controversy.

Fake Lawyers' Remark

In May 2026, Mishra made a separate claim that raised questions about the BCI’s regulatory and verification mechanisms. He said that around 35-40 per cent of people seen in court complexes wearing black coats and bands were “fake”, alleging that some were practising on the basis of fabricated law degrees.

"The Bar Council of India is aware that around 35 to 40 per cent of those seen in court complexes wearing black coats and bands are fake. Their degrees are absolutely fake; they manufactured them somewhere or bought them from somewhere, and on that basis, they are practising in courts," the BCI Chairperson told IANS.

Mishra said the issue emerged during the BCI’s process of verifying law degrees. According to him, around 40 per cent of advocates did not submit the required verification forms, leading the council to suspect that some of those individuals could be fake lawyers.

The allegation raises a broader question about the effectiveness of the BCI’s own regulatory mechanisms. If a large number of individuals without genuine qualifications are able to practise in courts, questions naturally arise over how they entered the profession and why they were not identified earlier.

Does the BCI have power to enrol advocates?

This is one of the key questions arising from the controversy. The Bar Council of India (BCI) is a statutory body established under the Advocates Act, 1961. It is responsible for regulating the legal profession, prescribing standards of professional conduct, exercising disciplinary powers in accordance with the law, and recognising law degrees and institutions for the purpose of entry into the profession.

However, the actual enrolment of individuals as advocates is carried out by the State Bar Councils.

This distinction is significant in the NALSAR case. Since enrolment is a function of the State Bar Councils, the BCI’s directive to state councils not to enrol an entire graduating batch has raised questions about the extent of its authority and the legal basis for such an intervention.

The directive's withdrawal within hours has raised questions about whether the BCI exceeded its jurisdiction from the start. The NALSAR controversy has raised questions about the BCI's authority to intervene in State Bar Councils' graduate enrollment, but fake lawyers highlight legal profession verification and monitoring issues.