SUPPORT SFLC.IN

Aditya Pareek

Comments on the draft Telecommunications (Telecom Cyber Security) Rules, 2024

SFLC.in condemns the recent directive issued by the Chairman of the Bar Council of India (BCI) ordering a blanket freeze on the enrolment of the 2026 graduating batch of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad for protesting against the invitation of the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as the chief guest at their upcoming convocation. While we acknowledge the subsequent withdrawal of this directive following widespread public outcry, the initial order is a glaring example of regulatory overreach that is firmly unconstitutional, ultra vires, and violates the fundamental right to privacy and right to practice a profession of the students. The deployment of such arbitrary measures on the eve of India’s 80th Independence Day deeply undermines the Constitutional freedoms we are entitled to as citizens; the very freedoms which were secured through the tireless advocacy and sacrifices of lawyers including the father of the nation, Advocate Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. The peaceful expression of dissent, which includes submitting representations regarding university affairs and organising/engaging in peaceful protest, is a core component of the fundamental right to free speech and expression protected under Article 19(1)(a), which forms part of the “Golden Triangle” of the Constitution of India. Additionally, attempting to strip law students of their fundamental right to practice their profession by enrolling as advocates with the Bar and earn a livelihood as a retaliatory measure for exercising their constitutional rights is arbitrary and violates Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution. Neither the Advocates Act, 1961 nor the Bar Council of India Rules confer any statutory authority upon the BCI or its Chairman to enforce collective punishment, or withhold professional registration via enrollments. In fact, as per Section 25 of the Advocates Act, 1961, the power to receive applications, verify qualifications, and enroll advocates lies solely in the State Bar Councils. Of further concern is the directive’s call for the university to profile those students and teachers who participated in the protests, identify the signatories to the joint representation, and place additional scrutiny on those that proliferated the representation on social media. This amounts to a demand for the surveillance of students exercising their fundamental rights, and reflects a disturbing and growing pattern, which is the weaponisation of regulatory frameworks and legal regimes that are meant to protect citizens into instruments of state surveillance and intimidation. It is important to note here that while the restriction on enrollment has since been withdrawn, the direction to institute an inquiry remains in force, and is yet to commence. While SFLC.in welcomes the withdrawal of the Chairman’s directive restricting enrollments, the threat of punitive action is not fully dissipated. SFLC.in will continue to closely monitor the situation to ensure that no student or faculty member is subjected to vindictive inquiries, digital tracking, or arbitrary administrative retaliation.

SFLC.in Condemns the BCI Chairman’s Unconstitutional Directive Against NALSAR Graduates

SFLC.in’s Statement Against Arbitrary Content Takedown and Account Restrictions Faced by Public Representatives and Journalists

SFLC.in’s Questions Before Parliamentary ‘Standing Committee on Communications and Information Technology’ on Social and Digital Platforms and their Regulation