On Wednesday, the Supreme Court clarified that the position of Manan Kumar Mishra as Chairperson of the Bar Council of India (BCI) is a temporary role until a newly formed body of lawyers elects its officials. The court instructed that any policy decisions made during this interim period must involve consultation with Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.
A three-judge panel, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and including Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, was reviewing petitions that contested Mishra’s continued role as BCI Chairperson following the expiration of the previous council’s term, as well as a notification issued in April 2025 that extended his tenure until 2030.
Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, representing the petitioners, argued that the BCI Rules stipulate a two-year term for the chairperson, and the recent notification did not clarify the clause under which it was issued.
Divan pointed out that the provision in Section 4(3) of the Advocates Act is designed to prevent a gap in leadership, allowing the last Chairperson or Vice Chairperson to remain until a new council is established. However, she contended that this provision has been misused to avoid elections and maintain the current office-bearers in power.
Justice Bagchi emphasized that the notification cannot extend beyond the established rules, stating, “If the rule holds, it can’t extend beyond 2027. On the face of the rule, notification can’t override a statute and empower a body to give additional tenure.”
The Chief Justice noted that the issues raised by the petitioners could be resolved if elections were conducted promptly.
Justice Bagchi highlighted the importance of involving the Attorney General and Solicitor General in policy decisions, advising BCI counsel, Senior Advocate Guru Krishnakumar, that the current leadership is functioning in a pro tem capacity until new elections are conducted. He stressed that the current Chairperson does not have a democratic mandate and that his term is tied to the imminent elections, which will lead to the formation of new Bar Councils. He pointed out that while day-to-day operations can be managed by the pro tem Chairperson, any substantial policy decisions should include the input of a permanent ex-officio member such as the Attorney General.
The bench also addressed concerns raised regarding the BCI-PEARL FIRST Trust, which was established by the council. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan expressed concerns that the deed of the trust permitted 11 managing trustees to remain as “original and permanent trustees” despite their terms with BCI.
The petitioners expressed worries about the transparency of the Trust’s financial activities. In response, the bench questioned how individuals elected to the BCI could designate themselves as permanent trustees. Justice Bagchi remarked, “We need to review the relevant terms of the Trust, as it is formed from the resources of the Bar Council. The Bar Council, according to Section 5 of the Act, is a juristic entity. Therefore, can those elected members become permanent trustees when the composition of the corporate body that established the trust is itself elected?”
Furthermore, the court instructed the Chief Justices of high courts to finalize the co-option of two women members to state Bar councils within two weeks and to announce the new composition within a week following the co-option. It also mandated that newly formed state Bar councils must elect their representatives to the BCI within three weeks of the notification of their new composition.
