When Graduation Ceremonies Became Political Tests
The controversy surrounding Chief Justice of India Surya Kant’s proposed appearances at university convocations has transformed what are normally celebratory academic ceremonies into a broader debate over institutional autonomy, student dissent and the legitimacy of constitutional authorities. Four institutions—NLSIU, TISS, NALSAR and O.P. Jindal Global University—have featured in the controversy, but the circumstances differ significantly. In some cases, events were postponed or altered amid student opposition; in others, the CJI has said he never accepted the invitation in the first place.
What Happened Across Four Campuses
At NLSIU Bengaluru, more than 700 students and alumni reportedly objected to the proposed September 12 convocation appearance of CJI Surya Kant and Bar Council of India chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra. The institution subsequently cancelled its physical convocation on August 27, citing “unavoidable circumstances”, with degrees to be conferred in absentia subject to approvals.
At TISS Mumbai, the CJI had been scheduled as chief guest for the August 2 convocation. The event was postponed and eventually held on August 22, with Tata Memorial Hospital Director Dr C. S. Pramesh replacing him. TISS cited the CJI’s busy schedule in explaining the change.
The NALSAR Hyderabad episode was different. More than 450 students petitioned against the reported proposal to invite the CJI, citing concerns about constitutional values, civil liberties and dissent. The CJI subsequently clarified that he had never accepted the invitation and therefore there was no question of his attending.
At O.P. Jindal Global University, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi addressed graduates instead of the CJI. Available reporting does not establish that student protest caused the change, and reports indicated that the invitation had not been accepted.
Why Students Raised Objections
The opposition was rooted in a wider student movement over alleged police excesses against youth protesters and concerns surrounding institutional accountability. At NALSAR, students argued that the presence of the CJI at their convocation could conflict with values such as constitutionalism, freedom of dissent and civil liberties that form part of legal education.
The controversy deepened when reports emerged that the BCI had moved against enrolment of NALSAR graduates following the dispute. That introduced a more serious concern: whether disagreement over a ceremonial invitation could have professional consequences for graduating law students.
When Convocations Become Campus Flashpoints
The fundamental issue is the balance between student expression and institutional authority. Students have a legitimate democratic right to peacefully question whom their university honours. Universities, meanwhile, have the responsibility to select guests, conduct ceremonies and maintain order.
A convocation, however, is not simply an administrative event. The person invited to confer or address graduates inevitably represents something about the institution’s values. That makes guest selection particularly sensitive at law universities, where constitutional freedoms, judicial accountability and dissent are central subjects of study.
Yet cancellation cannot become the automatic solution to disagreement. At NLSIU, the decision means students lose the physical ceremony regardless of whether they supported the objections.
The Larger Campus Lesson
These episodes reflect a changing political culture on campuses, where students are increasingly questioning not only governments but also judges, regulators and professional institutions. Universities can protect both autonomy and dissent by making guest-selection processes more transparent, encouraging structured consultation and ensuring that peaceful disagreement does not invite retaliation.
Protecting Dissent Without Losing Institutional Dignity
The CJI Surya Kant controversy ultimately raises a larger question: can universities accommodate principled dissent without allowing disagreement to overwhelm institutional functioning? The answer should not lie in silencing students or automatically cancelling ceremonies.
Convocations should remain occasions of academic achievement, but universities must also recognise that their guest lists carry symbolic meaning. The strongest institutional response is therefore neither confrontation nor capitulation, but transparent decision-making, peaceful dialogue and firm protection of lawful dissent. That is how campuses preserve both their academic dignity and democratic character.
(With agency inputs)
