August's biggest stories were about the legal system itself: who regulates the regulators, how appellate review works in both directions, and what happens after a protest movement wins.
BCI's Enrolment Threat Against NALSAR Batch, Withdrawn Within Hours
On 13 August, the Bar Council of India directed state bar councils to defer enrolment of NALSAR University of Law's entire graduating batch, citing a student campaign against Chief Justice Surya Kant's proposed presence at the university's convocation. The direction was withdrawn the same day, but the BCI sought an inquiry report naming students "principally instrumental" in the campaign. More than 700 NLSIU students and alumni issued a statement in solidarity demanding an unconditional apology, and on 27 August NLSIU cancelled its own 34th convocation, conferring degrees in absentia. The full story, and the questions it raises about the enrolment power under the Advocates Act, 1961, is this issue's cover story.
Supreme Court Calls Bar Councils "Men's Clubs", Orders Women Co-opted
On 4 August, a Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, hearing petitions on elections to the BCI and state bar councils, observed that bar councils have become "men's clubs" and that the monopoly over their functioning "has to be completely dismantled." The Court directed Chief Justices of the jurisdictional High Courts to nominate two co-opted women members to every state bar council, one a former High Court judge and the other a senior woman advocate of standing, both independent of the election process. The direction operationalises the existing framework of thirty percent representation for women in state bar councils. The methodology for transferable votes for women candidates was referred to the High-Powered Supervisory Committee headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia.
Bombay High Court Overturns Tejpal Acquittal, Thirteen Years On
On 6 August, the Bombay High Court's Goa Bench allowed the State of Goa's appeal against the 2021 acquittal of former Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal, convicting him in the 2013 case involving a junior colleague and sentencing him to ten years' imprisonment. The sessions court had acquitted Tejpal in May 2021 in a judgment widely criticised for its observations about the complainant's conduct. The High Court's reversal, resting on the electronic record including apology emails and CCTV-established timelines, closed a thirteen-year arc: eight years of trial, five years of appeal. Tejpal has publicly characterised the prosecution as vindictive, and further appeal to the Supreme Court remains open to him. Whatever follows, the case stands as a reminder that an acquittal is not the end of the appellate road, and that the length of that road is itself a burden the system places on everyone involved.
Delhi Court Acquits Brij Bhushan in Wrestlers' Case
On 3 August, Delhi's Rouse Avenue Court acquitted former Wrestling Federation of India president Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh of charges under Sections 354, 354A and 506(I) of the Indian Penal Code in the sexual harassment case brought by six women wrestlers, holding that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Former WFI assistant secretary Vinod Tomar was also acquitted. The case began with the wrestlers' Jantar Mantar protests of January 2023 and FIRs registered in April 2023 after Supreme Court intervention. It is worth stating precisely what the verdict means in law: an acquittal on the standard of proof is not a judicial finding that the allegations were false; it is a finding that guilt was not established to the criminal standard. An appeal against the acquittal remains legally available to the prosecution.
After the Protests: FIR Clarification and a Movement That Hasn't Gone Home
The aftermath of July's youth protests, covered on last month's cover, continued working through the system. The Supreme Court clarified that its earlier orders protecting student protesters did not prevent state governments from withdrawing FIRs in accordance with law, and that the phrase "criminal antecedents" in its orders referred to grave and heinous offences, not minor cases. The clarification came as the Centre told the Court it would not withdraw roughly 2,700 FIRs against persons with serious criminal antecedents. Meanwhile, the Cockroach Janta Party extended its support to students in Jharkhand agitating over alleged irregularities in JPSC and JSSC examinations, an early sign that July's movement is becoming a template rather than a one-time event.
SAMADHAN SAMAROH: 1,712 Cases Settled in Three Days
Under the SAMADHAN SAMAROH 2026 initiative, a special Lok Adalat was held from 21 to 23 August with judges presiding, resulting in 1,712 pending cases being settled or disposed of in three days. The numbers are modest against the scale of national pendency, but the exercise points at a mechanism most litigants never consider, and one this issue's Consumer Forum column examines in practical detail.