3 hrs ago
Supreme Court Limits Authority of Pro Tem BCI Chairman
The Supreme Court is deciding how long Manan Kumar Mishra can lead the Bar Council of India.
The court said he is only a temporary, or pro tem, chairperson.
This means he can help manage the Council’s everyday work for now.
It does not mean the court has approved his position permanently.
Important policy decisions should involve the Attorney General and Solicitor General.
New State Bar Councils are expected to choose representatives for a newly formed BCI.
Some lawyers say Mishra’s tenure was extended beyond the time allowed by the rules.
The case also follows a disagreement involving the enrollment of NALSAR graduates.
The BCI later allowed the graduates to enroll, and Mishra apologized if his words had hurt students.
The Supreme Court said Manan Kumar Mishra is a pro tem BCI chairperson until fresh elections are completed.
The court allowed the existing arrangement to handle day-to-day affairs but rejected treating it as permanent approval.
It directed that policy decisions involve the Attorney General and Solicitor General of India.
Petitioners challenge Mishra’s continued tenure and notifications extending the chairman and vice-chairman’s terms until 2030.
Newly constituted State Bar Councils must elect their office-bearers and BCI representative within three weeks of notification.
- Who
- The Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, heard petitions concerning BCI Chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra.
- What
- The court limited Mishra’s current role to a pro tem arrangement and directed consultation with the Attorney General and Solicitor General on policy decisions.
- Where
- The matter was heard by the Supreme Court in New Delhi.
- When
- The hearing took place on Wednesday, September 2; the year is not explicitly stated in the reports.
- Why
- Petitioners challenged Mishra’s prolonged tenure, the extension of the chairman and vice-chairman’s terms until 2030, and related BCI governance decisions.
Petitioners’ Challenge
BCI Chairman’s Position
Mishra’s tenure
Petitioners’ Challenge
The petitioners argue that Mishra’s continuation and the extension of his tenure exceed the limits set by BCI rules and may avoid the required elections.
BCI Chairman’s Position
Mishra’s counsel agreed that the Attorney General and Solicitor General should be consulted, while objecting to what he called broad insinuations and indirect allegations against the chairman.
Scope of current authority
Petitioners’ Challenge
The petitioners seek Mishra’s removal and contend that the existing arrangement has allowed current office-holders to remain in place beyond their prescribed terms.
BCI Chairman’s Position
The court said the existing arrangement may manage routine affairs until fresh BCI elections, while clarifying that Mishra is not equivalent to a democratically elected chairperson.
BCI trust governance
Petitioners’ Challenge
A petitioner alleged that a BCI-created trust made 11 managing trustees permanent and sought a high-level probe into the transfer of assets and income.
BCI Chairman’s Position
The BCI’s position was represented in court, while the bench questioned whether elected members could make themselves perpetual trustees of assets belonging to a body whose composition changes through elections.
Key facts
- Current status
- The court described Mishra as a pro tem chairperson pending fresh BCI elections.
- Routine authority
- The existing arrangement may continue handling the BCI’s day-to-day functioning.
- Policy oversight
- Policy decisions must involve the Attorney General for India and the Solicitor General, according to the court’s direction.
- Election timeline
- Newly constituted State Bar Councils must elect office-bearers and a BCI representative within three weeks of notification of their composition.
- Challenged extension
- Petitioners contest an April 21, 2025 Gazette notification extending Mishra’s tenure until 2030.
- Rules dispute
- The petitioners argue that BCI Rule 12(2) provides a two-year term for the chairman and vice-chairman, or until membership ends, whichever is earlier.
- NALSAR controversy
- The BCI withdrew its earlier decision preventing NALSAR graduates from enrolling, later allowing all 2026 graduates to enroll as advocates.
Quotes
Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Supreme Court judge and member of the bench hearing the petitions
“The Bar Council of India is a juristic entity. That entity has created a trust from its assets through the elected members who constituted the Council. Can those elected members make themselves permanent trustees of those assets when the composition of the corporate entity that settled the trust is itself determined through elections?”
theprint.in
“We are not placing any stamp of approval upon the existing arrangement. It is apparent that the present chairperson can continue only until a fresh election to the Bar Council of India takes place pursuant to the State Bar Council elections already conducted.”
theprint.in
Sources
Related news
BCI Chief Mishra's 12-Year Tenure Sparks Supreme Court Reform Plea
Plea Challenges Manan Kumar Mishra’s Long Tenure As BCI Chair
CJI rebukes Bar Council of India chief over NALSAR ban
Bar Council Chairman Mishra Must Resign After Nalsar Enrolment Threat
Supreme Court Orders BCI Consultation on Policy Decisions
BCI Chief Rejects Resignation Calls Amid NALSAR Protest Dispute
Supreme Court allows Asaram Bapu full-time caregiver in jail
