Archive · 3 Sep 2026
Supreme Court Questions BCI Chairman’s Proposed Five-Year Tenure
The Supreme Court is examining how long the head of the Bar Council of India can stay in office.
The chairman, Manan Kumar Mishra, is being questioned about continuing until 2030.
The court said he may temporarily handle routine work.
However, it said this temporary role should not be treated as a permanent extension.
People who filed the case say BCI rules allow the chairman and vice-chairman to serve for two years.
The court also questioned how a three-year term could become five years.
A rule lets office-bearers continue until replacements are elected.
The judges said this rule is meant to avoid a gap in administration, not to extend someone’s tenure indefinitely.
The Supreme Court questioned Manan Kumar Mishra’s continuation as Bar Council of India chairman until 2030.
The bench said Mishra’s current role appeared to be only pro tem until a newly constituted BCI elects office-bearers.
The court said the existing arrangement may continue for day-to-day functioning but does not amount to a tenure extension.
Petitioners challenged notifications extending the BCI chairman and vice-chairman’s terms to five years.
The petitioners argued that BCI rules prescribe two-year terms, while the court questioned an extension from three years to five years.
- Who
- The Supreme Court, BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, the Bar Council of India, and petitioners challenging the tenure extensions.
- What
- The court questioned the validity of Mishra’s continuation as BCI chairman until 2030 and the notifications providing five-year terms.
- When
- The issue was raised during the Supreme Court hearing described in the article; the proposed continuation runs until 2030.
- Where
- New Delhi, before the Supreme Court.
- Why
- Petitioners argued that BCI rules prescribe two-year terms, while the court questioned whether a transitional continuation provision could justify a longer tenure.
Petitioners’ challenge
Continuation defended as transitional
Length of tenure
Petitioners’ challenge
The petitioners argued that BCI rules prescribe two-year terms for the chairman and vice-chairman, making the five-year extensions invalid.
Continuation defended as transitional
The existing office-bearers may continue under a provision allowing them to remain until successors are elected, although the court said this should be treated only as a transitional arrangement.
Meaning of continued office
Petitioners’ challenge
The challenged notifications were presented as improperly extending the chairman’s tenure until 2030.
Continuation defended as transitional
The continuation can support day-to-day functioning until a freshly constituted BCI elects its office-bearers, but the court questioned treating it as a formal extension.
- BCI chairman
- Manan Kumar Mishra
- Proposed continuation
- Until 2030
- Challenged terms
- Five years for the chairman and vice-chairman
- Petitioners’ position
- BCI rules prescribe two-year terms
- Court’s view of current role
- Prima facie pro tem until a freshly constituted BCI elects office-bearers
- Permitted function
- Day-to-day administrative functioning
- Judicial concern
- A succession provision should not indefinitely prolong tenure