‘Brilliant, Bold and Brave’: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Praises NALSAR Students at Moot Court Valedictory

Justice Ujjal Bhuyan praised NALSAR students at the 19th Justice B.R. Sawhny Memorial Moot Court Competition on 4 October, weeks after the NALSAR-BCI dispute reached the Supreme Court.

What Happened

Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan delivered the valedictory address at the 19th NALSAR Justice BR Sawhny Memorial Moot Court Competition 2026, organised by NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, on 4 October 2026.

According to LiveLaw, Justice Bhuyan praised the students of NALSAR, describing them as “brilliant, bold and brave” and saying they had shown the country and the world what a university student, particularly a law student, should be.

He also commended the university’s faculty for fulfilling their responsibilities as teachers and praised Vice-Chancellor Professor Srikrishna Deva Rao’s leadership. Justice Bhuyan noted that Professor Rao had been appointed Vice-Chancellor during Justice Bhuyan’s own tenure as NALSAR’s Chancellor and said he had led the university without letting down its teachers or students, as reported by LiveLaw.

Justice Bhuyan did not explicitly refer to the recent controversy involving the NALSAR graduating batch, the Bar Council of India or the BCI’s actions in the address, LiveLaw reported.

Justice Bhuyan has a previous institutional connection with NALSAR. He served as Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court from June 2022 to July 2023 and, in that capacity, was the university’s ex-officio Chancellor. He was elevated to the Supreme Court in July 2023.

Background & Context

The remarks came against the backdrop of an episode involving NALSAR’s 2026 graduating batch.

In August, a section of students objected to the proposed invitation of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as chief guest at the university’s convocation. The Hindu, as cited by LiveLaw, reported that the objection was connected to remarks made by the CJI during court proceedings concerning alleged police excesses against protesters in Delhi.

On 13 August 2026, BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra directed State Bar Councils not to enrol any graduate from NALSAR’s 2026 batch as an advocate until further orders. According to LiveLaw, he also asked the Vice-Chancellor to submit a report identifying students allegedly involved in organising the campaign. The BCI withdrew the enrolment direction hours later and said proceedings against the batch had been dropped.

NALSAR, meanwhile, said it would examine the legality of the BCI directions and place the issue before its Executive Council before proceeding with any inquiry, according to LiveLaw.

Two NALSAR alumni, Mihira Sood and Abhishek Tiwari, subsequently challenged the BCI Chairman’s directions before the Supreme Court in Mihira Sood v. Bar Council of India.

When the matter first came before the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice disapproved of the BCI’s action, according to a PTI report. LiveLaw reported that on 14 August the Court directed that no punitive action be taken against NALSAR students or faculty over the campaign.

On 3 September 2026, a bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana held that the Advocates Act, 1961 does not confer express or implied power on the BCI or a State Bar Council to take disciplinary action against law students. The Court held that such authority lies with the student’s educational institution under its applicable regulations or by-laws, while the Bar Council’s disciplinary jurisdiction begins after a graduate is enrolled as an advocate.

The Court declared the BCI Chairman’s communication of 13 August, along with subsequent modified communications, to have been issued without authority of law and made its interim directions absolute. The petition was consequently disposed of.

Key Details

• Court/Forum: 19th NALSAR Justice BR Sawhny Memorial Moot Court Competition 2026; related ruling by the Supreme Court of India.
• Dates: Justice Bhuyan’s address was delivered on 4 October 2026; the Supreme Court ruling was delivered on 3 September 2026; the BCI direction was dated 13 August 2026.
• Case: Mihira Sood v. Bar Council of India.
• Law: Advocates Act, 1961.
• Parties: Mihira Sood and Abhishek Tiwari, NALSAR alumni, versus the Bar Council of India and others.
• Current Status: The Supreme Court has disposed of the petition. Justice Bhuyan’s remarks were made in a public valedictory address and were not part of a legal proceeding.

Why It Matters

The significance of Justice Bhuyan’s remarks lies principally in their timing and in his earlier institutional connection with NALSAR. He was speaking as a sitting Supreme Court judge and former Chancellor of the university, only weeks after the NALSAR episode had produced a Supreme Court ruling on the limits of the BCI’s authority over law students.

That timing, however, does not establish a connection between the speech and the controversy. Justice Bhuyan did not refer to the BCI episode, the CJI or the dispute in the address, according to LiveLaw. His remarks should therefore be read as the public praise he expressed for NALSAR’s students, faculty and leadership, without attributing any further motive to him.

The more concrete legal development remains the Supreme Court’s 3 September ruling. The judgment draws a distinction between the BCI’s regulatory role in legal education and its disciplinary jurisdiction over enrolled advocates, on one hand, and the authority of universities over their own students, on the other. The Court made clear that the BCI can prescribe standards relating to legal education under the applicable regulatory framework, but that does not give it disciplinary jurisdiction over students before enrolment.

For law students and institutions, that distinction clarifies where disciplinary authority lies during the period before enrolment as an advocate. For the present story, it also provides the legal context in which Justice Bhuyan’s remarks were delivered, while leaving the judge’s own words to stand without assigning them a connection he did not state.

Closing

Justice Bhuyan’s address was, on its face, a tribute to NALSAR’s students, faculty and leadership. The surrounding timeline gives the remarks additional public attention, but the speech itself did not address the controversy that had brought the university and the BCI before the Supreme Court.

The legal position emerging from that episode is clearer: the Supreme Court has held that disciplinary authority over law students rests with their educational institutions under their governing rules, while the BCI’s disciplinary jurisdiction attaches after enrolment as an advocate.