Welcome turnaround, Bar Council members

Bar Council of India's (BCI) withdrawal of its circular threatening to bar NALSAR University of Law's 2026 graduates from enrolling with state bar councils, after a section of students objected to inviting CJI Surya Kant to the university's convocation, is excellent news. This confirms two things: one, that BCI is humble enough to admit to its momentary lapse in which it may have tried to come across as being more loyal than the king; two, that the council does, indeed, know the difference between the prerogative to withdraw an invitation as legitimate disaffection, and breaking the law or any norm that can invite legitimate punishment.

The chief justice himself fumigated the air a day later when he described BCI's 'intervention' as a matter between him and the students. Threatening aspiring lawyers with sanctions for 'disrespecting' a constitutional authority can come across as a bit heavy-handed, and could have revealed more about those making such a threat than those at whom it was directed. Council members, who must have merely intended to impart a lesson in public politeness, did well to make a turnaround.

Excessive zeal rarely does its intended beneficiary any favours. It can, in fact, erroneously suggest that one is defending someone perceived to have a thin skin. Institutions command respect not by suppressing dissent but by giving enough leeway to absorb it. BCI's reversal, therefore, deserves to be welcomed, especially because it came before the council could inflict any reputational damage to itself. In reaffirming the distinction between criticism and coercion, and between legal wrongs and perceived slights, the episode has reinforced a principle every practitioner and purveyor of law ought to recognise instinctively.