NLSIU: Convocation Cancelled Amid CJI Surya Kant Protest

• National Law School of India University (NLSIU) cancelled its 2026 graduating batch convocation, citing "unavoidable circumstances."
• The cancellation occurred after students rejected a university demand to issue a public statement inviting Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant to the ceremony.
• Over 700 NLSIU community members had signed a statement objecting to the attendance of CJI Surya Kant and BCI chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra.
• This student action followed a prior incident where the Bar Council of India (BCI) temporarily halted and then restored enrolment for NALSAR's graduating batch due to their objection to CJI Surya Kant's presence at their convocation.
• CJI Surya Kant, as Chancellor, met with students, who were then asked to vote on attending the convocation with him present without protest, or holding it without him or allowing any individual.

The decision by the National Law School of India University to cancel its convocation for the 2026 graduating batch, rather than accede to student demands regarding the presence of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, marks a significant moment in the landscape of Indian legal education.

The National Law School of India University (NLSIU) has cancelled the convocation ceremony for its 2026 graduating batch. The university issued a notice on a Thursday, citing "unavoidable circumstances" and stating that degrees would be conferred to students in absentia. This decision by NLSIU came after students rejected a demand from university authorities to issue a public statement inviting Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant to the event.

Students had initially been invited on August 3 for a convocation scheduled for September 12, prompting them to make travel and accommodation arrangements for both dates. However, on August 15, over 700 members of the NLSIU community collectively signed a statement. This statement explicitly voiced their objection to the attendance of both CJI Surya Kant and Bar Council of India (BCI) chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra at the National Law School India University convocation.

In the wake of the growing `NLSIU student protest CJI`, CJI Surya Kant, who serves as the university's Chancellor, expressed a desire to meet with the students to understand their position. On August 17, the graduating batches of NLSIU were informed of this request, and a meeting subsequently took place between the Chief Justice and the students.

Following this discussion, the batches were presented with a choice: they were asked to vote on whether they would attend a convocation with the Chief Justice present, on the condition that there would be no protest or disruption. The alternative option put forth was to hold the convocation without the Chief Justice or allowing any individual, highlighting the `Surya Kant convocation dispute` at the heart of the matter.

The student statement of August 15 was not an isolated incident but followed closely on the heels of significant actions by the Bar Council of India (BCI). Just two days prior, on August 13, the BCI had made a controversial decision to first halt and then, within hours, restore the enrolment process for NALSAR's graduating batch. This regulatory intervention, which caused a temporary `NALSAR enrolment halt`, was directly linked to NALSAR's own objection to Chief Justice Surya Kant's proposed presence at their convocation ceremony.

This `BCI Manan Kumar Mishra controversy` surrounding NALSAR's enrolment, preceding the NLSIU situation, established a precedent of regulatory bodies reacting to student dissent concerning judicial figures. The interconnectedness of these events underscores a broader pattern of student activism challenging established authorities within India's legal education system.

The `NLSIU convocation cancelled CJI Surya Kant` incident represents a pivotal moment, signaling a growing assertiveness among law students in India to challenge institutional decisions and express their views on high-profile judicial figures. The university's decision to cancel the ceremony rather than compel students to publicly invite the Chief Justice highlights the significant impact of collective student action.

This dispute, alongside the earlier `NALSAR enrolment halt` and the broader `BCI Manan Kumar Mishra controversy`, illustrates an evolving dynamic where student bodies are increasingly willing to take a stand, even when it means disrupting traditional academic ceremonies. Such developments reflect a potential shift in the power balance within legal academia, where student voices are becoming a more potent force in shaping institutional policies and engagements with the judiciary.

This event signals growing student activism within India's legal education system against judicial and regulatory authorities. Lawyers should monitor these developments as they reflect evolving sentiments that could influence future legal discourse and the professional landscape.

Source: Original reporting via Bar and Bench