Bar Council breaks the law to crawl, its chief must go

The Bar Council of India has rolled back its illegal, arbitrary and overreaching direction to State Bar Councils to not enrol 2026 graduates of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad. But that cannot, and should not, be the end of the matter. It is necessary to rewind and pause on the now-withdrawn decision — to see how it combines a repressive reading of citizens’ fundamental rights with an overblown understanding of the restrictions that can be imposed on them; how the BCI arrogates to itself powers that are not, by law, vested in it; how the institutional failure of the Bar to hold up its end undermines the justice delivery system. The BCI’s attempt to impose blanket restrictions and administer collective punishment on an entire batch of law students came after about 450 students of NALSAR objected to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant attending their convocation as chief guest — earlier, a remark by the CJI had become the trigger for the formation of the Cockroach Janta Party, and another comment on the students’ protests subsequently seemed to underline perceptions of the Court’s insensitivity. On Friday, CJI Surya Kant himself snubbed the BCI: “It’s a dialogue between students and me. Who are they (BCI) to unnecessarily raise an issue?” The CJI’s rebuke is welcome and reassuring. But the need remains urgent for the BCI to conduct an honest reckoning.

The BCI is mandated to regulate legal education, recognise law degrees, supervise State Bar Councils, exercise disciplinary jurisdiction over advocates. Its abortive bid to curb the freedom of expression of young citizens and cramp their right to disagree with a constitutional authority by blackballing them is a blatant misuse of its powers. The Advocates Act, 1961, under which the BCI was established as an independent statutory authority, provides a finite list of grounds for disqualification from enrolment — participation in a peaceful students’ campaign is certainly not one of them. In its zeal to cosy up to the judicial and/or political establishment, the BCI ignores that the constitutional guarantee of free speech includes the right to protest peacefully, and that the SC has laid down that restrictions must be tailored narrowly. The attempt to silence budding advocates is especially jarring in the aftermath of the students’ protests — it shows an institution that has not learnt any lessons from the movement on the street.

Overall Analysis

The editorial is a strong criticism of the Bar Council of India (BCI) for withdrawing enrolment restrictions imposed on NALSAR law graduates after students protested against the Chief Justice of India attending their convocation. The author argues that although the BCI has withdrawn its controversial order, the episode cannot simply be forgotten because it exposes deeper problems in the functioning and accountability of the institution.

The editorial begins with a sharp and confrontational argument. Words such as “illegal,” “arbitrary,” “overreaching,” “repressive,” and “overblown” immediately establish the author’s disapproval. The author uses the phrase “rewind and pause” metaphorically, asking readers to examine the decision carefully rather than treating its withdrawal as the end of the controversy.

A major linguistic feature is the use of strong verbs and loaded expressions. Phrases such as “arrogates to itself powers,” “administer collective punishment,” “blackballing them,” and “curb the freedom of expression” make the criticism forceful. At the same time, the author supports the argument through constitutional and legal reasoning, rather than relying only on emotional language.

The editorial creates a clear contrast between peaceful dissent and institutional punishment. The students merely expressed disagreement, while the BCI allegedly responded by attempting to prevent an entire batch from being enrolled. This contrast strengthens the author’s argument that the punishment was disproportionate.

The second paragraph becomes more legal and constitutional in character. The author explains the legitimate functions of the BCI and then argues that restricting students because of peaceful protest falls outside those powers. The reference to the Advocates Act, 1961, and the constitutional guarantee of free speech gives the argument legal credibility.

The phrase “finite list of grounds” is particularly important: it suggests that the BCI cannot invent new grounds for disqualification according to its own wishes. Similarly, “restrictions must be tailored narrowly” conveys the constitutional principle that even when restrictions on rights are permitted, they cannot be excessively broad.

The final part becomes more sarcastic and accusatory. The phrase “in its zeal to cosy up to the judicial and/or political establishment” suggests that the BCI may have acted to please powerful institutions rather than independently performing its statutory role. The closing observation — “an institution that has not learnt any lessons from the movement on the street” — gives the editorial a powerful ending by connecting the immediate controversy with the broader democratic lesson of respecting dissent.

Overall, the language is formal but highly assertive, combining legal terminology with metaphors, idioms, contrasts and emotionally charged vocabulary. The editorial does not merely report the incident; it makes a clear normative argument about constitutional freedom, institutional accountability and the right to peaceful dissent.

📚 Important Vocabulary – 5

1. Arbitrary – based on personal choice rather than reason, law or principle.
2. Arrogate – to claim or take something without having the right to do so.
3. Blackball – to deliberately prevent or exclude someone from participation or acceptance.
4. Jarring – noticeably unpleasant, inappropriate or disturbing.
5. Reckoning – serious examination or assessment of one’s actions, especially mistakes.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial argues that the BCI’s withdrawal of its order is not sufficient. The institution must examine why it attempted to punish students for peaceful dissent and whether it exceeded its legal authority. The larger message is that institutions responsible for the legal profession must themselves respect constitutional freedoms, due process and the right to peaceful protest.

Tone: Strongly critical, accusatory, constitutional and assertive, with elements of sarcasm and moral indignation.