SC asks AG, SG to join BCI policy decisions until body is reconstituted

Supreme Court says it is not approving Manan Kumar Mishra's continuation as BCI chairman; State Bar Councils told to elect representatives within two weeks

The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to participate in policy decisions of the Bar Council of India (BCI) until the statutory process for reconstituting the apex bar body is completed.

 

A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, passed the direction while hearing petitions challenging the continuation of senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra as BCI chairman.

 

The Court made it clear that it was not approving Mishra’s continuation in office. Justice Bagchi observed that Mishra could continue only until fresh elections to the BCI are held following the completion of elections to the State Bar Councils.

 

 

“We are not placing any stamp of approval upon the existing arrangement,” Justice Bagchi said, adding that routine functioning could continue under the existing leadership but “when a policy decision is taken, the participation of a permanent ex officio member acting independently, such as the Attorney General, is necessary.”

 

The Court directed newly constituted State Bar Councils to complete the election of their office-bearers, including their representatives to the BCI, within two weeks of notification of their composition.

 

The councils have also been directed to file compliance reports before the Supreme Court. The question of the BCI’s reconstitution will be taken up after these reports are received.

 

The petitions have challenged an April 2025 gazette notification under which Mishra’s tenure as BCI chairman was extended by five years, until 2030. During the hearing, Justice Bagchi questioned the statutory basis of the notification.

 

Senior advocate Madhavi Divan, appearing for a petitioner, submitted that BCI Rule 12(2) prescribes a two-year term for the chairman and vice-chairman and contended that a notification could not override the rule.

 

She also pointed out that the BCI’s March 2025 resolution had extended the tenure of its chairman and vice-chairman despite one of the office-bearers subsequently losing an election.

 

The Bench said it was examining the statutory framework governing the BCI rather than any individual.

 

“We are not examining an individual. Let us not convert this into an issue concerning a particular person. We are examining the statutory framework,” Chief Justice Kant said.

 

The hearing also saw allegations concerning the functioning of the BCI’s PEARL Trust, including questions over its creation, transfer of assets from the original BCI Trust and the appointment of managing trustees whose tenure could extend beyond their membership of the elected BCI.

 

The Court questioned whether elected members could appoint themselves permanent trustees of assets belonging to a statutory body whose composition itself changes through elections. The matter will be heard again after two weeks.