Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said he never accepted an invitation to serve as the chief guest at NALSAR University's convocation [1].
The clarification comes as a wave of student opposition grew against the judge's potential appearance at the university in Hyderabad [6].
Surya Kant said that because he never consented to the invite, the question of his attendance does not arise [3]. This statement follows a period of tension at NALSAR University of Law, where students expressed significant disapproval regarding the proposed guest [5].
Approximately 450 students urged the university not to invite the Chief Justice to the ceremony [6]. The protests were driven by controversy surrounding comments the judge made regarding alleged police excesses during NEET protests [2].
The student body's opposition snowballed, leading to the eventual withdrawal of the invitation [5]. The conflict highlighted a growing friction between the academic community at the law school and the leadership of the judiciary [6].
NALSAR University is one of India's premier legal institutions. The convocation is a primary event for graduating students, and the choice of chief guest often carries symbolic weight regarding the university's values, and its relationship with the legal establishment [6].
By clarifying that no agreement was ever reached, the Chief Justice has distanced himself from the administrative process of the invitation [1]. This move effectively ends the immediate dispute over his presence at the event, though the underlying grievances cited by the students remain [2].
“Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said he never accepted an invitation to serve as the chief guest at NALSAR University's convocation.”
This incident reflects a broader trend of student activism within India's elite legal institutions, where students are increasingly using their platform to challenge the judicial leadership on human rights and police conduct. The Chief Justice's clarification serves to neutralize a public relations conflict while acknowledging the volatility of the current academic climate regarding judicial remarks on civil liberties.
