Should constitutional functionaries such as the Chief Justice of India hold ceremonial roles in educational institutions? Examine with reference to recent controversies.

The Chief Justice of India is, by virtue of office, the Chancellor of NLSIU, Bengaluru. In 2026 its 34th convocation was postponed from 12 September to 17 October. NLSIU students had backed a NALSAR, Hyderabad protest against the CJI's remarks on the country's youth [1]. The episode shows that such roles bring benefits but also real risks.

Case for ceremonial roles

• Prestige and values: A CJI as Chancellor gives law schools credibility and links legal education to constitutional ideals. At the rescheduled convocation, CJI Surya Kant stressed honesty, service and "upholding the Constitution" [1].
• Speech on values is allowed: The UN Commentary on the Bangalore Principles records that judges may join public debate on major social issues. The firm line is political activity [4]. A convocation speech on pluralism falls well inside that line.
• Little administrative load: The Chancellor is a titular head. The Vice-Chancellor runs the university.

Case against

• Controversy spills onto campus: A dispute with the judge becomes a dispute with the university. Graduates waited five weeks for their degrees [1].
• Spread across campuses: The same office sits over several NLUs, so the objection spread from NALSAR to NLSIU [1].
• Appearance of impropriety: The Bangalore Principles require judges to avoid even the appearance of impropriety [3]. If the university litigates in the Supreme Court, the head of that court is also its Chancellor.
• Weak accountability for speech: The Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (1997) bars judges from public debate on political matters. However, it relies only on an in-house procedure [2]. The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 would have made such standards binding [5], but it was never enacted. The Restatement is still only "widely regarded" as the code of conduct [6]. As a result, students had no forum except protest.

Way forward

• Keep the role strictly ceremonial, with recusal from cases involving the institution.
• Limit addresses to general values and avoid comments on groups of citizens.
• Codify judicial conduct standards, as the 2010 Bill attempted [5].

Overall, ceremonial roles are not wrong in themselves; the risks come from what is said and from conflicts of interest. With recusal norms and restrained speech, the CJI can remain a mentor to legal education without risking the impartiality that the judicial office and the Bangalore Principles exist to protect.