The controversy of the cancellation of the 2026 convocation of National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru, is in full-bore after the Student Bar Council (SBC) of NALSAR Hyderabad questioned the reason behind the cancellation. An NALSAR student body said they had been informed that the university administration did not have to ask students to send a public letter to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant to the convocation.
The controversy is due to the role of the CJI as the ex-officio Chancellor of NLSIU and the earlier dispute over his planned presence at the ceremony. The NALSAR SBC says the university statutory structure recognises the CJI as Chancellor and allows for the CJI to organise the convocation. Students said they were aware of the institutional arrangement but that NLSIU students had finally agreed that the CJI could attend the ceremony.
However, the statement says students were asked to issue a public statement inviting the CJI to attend. The SBC said that this was done after the students had already approved the proposed arrangement. The students declined to issue such a public invitation, and the convocation was cancelled.
The NALSAR SBC said the exact sequence of events and who initiated the request could only be established by speaking directly with the stakeholders involved. But the Council said it had been made clear to it that the NLSIU administration had not asked students to issue the public letter. The student body said this raised questions about the circumstances surrounding the cancellation.
The SBC also expressed concern that the request may have come from the CJI's office. If it was indeed from the CJI's office who made the request, it would have been unfortunate because it would mean that public perception and institutional discourse had been prioritised and not the interests of the graduating students were being considered as well, it said.
NALSAR student body praised the NLSIU graduating batch for holding its position and rejecting the request for a public invitation. The students’ decision was a principled one, it said and the reasons behind the cancellation should be made public.
NALSAR students' earlier controversy with BCI
The current dispute is connected to a number of developments involving NALSAR students, the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the CJI. The NALSAR students had earlier objected to the CJI Surya Kant’s presence at their convocation.
The controversy started when BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra gave instructions relating to the enrolment of students from the graduating batch of NALSAR. The move was criticized by legal fraternity members. The BCI withdrew its decision after the backlash.
NLSIU students and alumni joined their NALSAR counterparts in solidarity. More than 700 NLSIU community members, according to the official, signed an opposing letter to the BCI chairman, objecting to Mishra and CJI Surya Kant who were able to attend NLSIU's convocation and demanding an apology.
The situation was later modified when CJI Kant met NLSIU students to discuss their concerns. Following that meeting, students were asked to vote if they would go to a convocation where the CJI would be present, as long as no protest or disturbance took place. Students were also assured that BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra would not attend.
A vote on August 23 resulted in majority support for the proposed arrangement, and students appeared to consider the alternative of cancellation. However, according to the NALSAR SBC's account, the situation changed two days later.
Public Invitation became a point of dispute
On August 25, students were told that the convocation would proceed only if the graduating batches issued a public statement inviting the CJI. This was a major dispute.
The NALSAR SBC said students had already agreed to the CJI's presence under the earlier arrangement and questioned why such an additional public invitation was required. In the end, the students and other stakeholders could not reach an agreement on the revised condition and the convocation was cancelled.
The cancellation has disappointed students and their families, it says. The NALSAR SBC pointed out that convocation is a major achievement after so many years of education, exams and personal effort. Graduates had already made plans for the ceremony and were expected to go to meet family and friends, it said.
The Council held the cancellation very badly back and described the loss of the ceremony as cruel to those who had been preparing for it. It also questioned the reason why the convocation was cancelled for “unavoidable circumstances” and felt that more transparency should have been provided by an institution associated with legal education.
Questions Over Transparency
The NALSAR SBC stopped short of directly attributing blame for the cancellation. There are different versions of the events and it would not respond to disputed accounts without full knowledge of the facts and circumstances, it said. But the student body said the situation indicated a lack of care and attention towards graduating students.
The Council also referred to observations made by CJI Surya Kant in the NALSAR-related case where the court had stated that students have the right to protest and should be allowed to do so peacefully. In this light, NALSAR SBC has questioned the NLSIU convocation and the additional request for a public invitation.
The controversy has now raised broader questions about student representation, institutional autonomy, transparency and the relationship between students and senior legal institutions. For graduating students, however, the immediate concern is the loss of an important academic milestone.
As the dispute continues, the question of who asked for the public invitation, why the requirement was asked for when students had already agreed to the CJI's presence and whether they could have found alternatives to allow the convocation to take place has remained on the agenda. NALSAR SBC has called for more clarity and continues to be in solidarity with the NLSIU graduating batch.
