NEW DELHI: The tenure of Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra has come under fresh legal scrutiny after a petition was filed before the Supreme Court questioning the legal basis for his continued occupation of the post and seeking a wider examination of the functioning and finances of the statutory body.
By AALIMI NATION | Law & Justice Desk/Live Law
The writ petition, filed by advocate Yogamaya M.G., challenges the interpretation of the rules governing the tenure of the BCI chairman and vice-chairman. It also seeks fresh elections, limits on the number of terms that office-bearers can serve and a more representative system of regional rotation in the BCI’s leadership.
The allegations and contentions contained in the petition have not been adjudicated by the Supreme Court and should not be treated as established findings.
A Long-Running Leadership Tenure
According to the petition, Mishra first became BCI chairman in 2012. Following a brief interruption in 2014, he returned to the position in November that year and has remained chairman since then.
The petition says Mishra was re-elected unopposed in March 2025 and describes the latest election as his seventh consecutive term.
It specifically challenges an April 2025 notification recording his tenure as running from April 17, 2025, to April 16, 2030.
At the heart of the challenge is Rule 12(2) of the BCI Rules, which the petitioner says provides a two-year term for the chairman and vice-chairman, subject to the cessation of membership, whichever occurs earlier.
The petitioner argues that an administrative notification cannot extend a tenure beyond the period permitted by the governing rules.
What the Petition Seeks
The plea asks the Supreme Court to consider a series of institutional reforms, including:
Setting aside the April 2025 notification extending the chairman’s tenure;
Ending the tenure of the current chairman and vice-chairman if their continuation is found unlawful;
Holding fresh BCI elections within a specified timeframe;
Introducing a cumulative limit on the number of terms an individual may serve;
Providing for a cooling-off period between terms;
Establishing a transparent system of regional rotation;
Preventing term limits from being circumvented through acting, temporary or interim appointments.
The broader argument advanced by the petitioner is that regular leadership changes are necessary to preserve the representative and democratic character of a statutory professional regulator.
Questions Over Political Office and Institutional Neutrality
The petition also raises questions concerning Mishra’s political position.
It refers to his nomination as a Rajya Sabha member by the BJP in 2024 and questions whether simultaneously holding political office and leading the statutory regulator of India’s legal profession could raise concerns about institutional neutrality and public confidence.
The petitioner does not contend that political affiliation, by itself, automatically disqualifies an individual from serving as BCI chairman.
Instead, the plea asks the court to examine whether the combination of the two roles creates an institutional conflict or perception of diminished independence.
The petition also refers to public statements issued through BCI channels on political and public issues and questions whether such communications were authorised by the BCI General Council and fell within its statutory mandate.
These remain claims and legal questions raised by the petitioner, rather than findings of the court.
Financial Transparency at the Centre of the Plea
The petition goes beyond the question of leadership tenure and seeks an independent examination of the BCI’s finances.
Among the areas it asks to be scrutinised are:
BCI statutory funds;
All India Bar Examination receipts;
Institutional revenues;
Trust finances;
Vendor contracts;
Related-party transactions;
Bank accounts associated with examination fees;
Expenditure approvals; and
Audited financial statements.
Particular attention has been drawn to funds collected through the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) and the mechanisms through which those funds are received, administered and spent.
The petitioner seeks greater transparency and independent oversight of these financial arrangements.
PEARL-FIRST Trust Under Scrutiny
The petition also seeks an independent examination of the PEARL-FIRST Trust, an institution associated with BCI initiatives concerning legal and professional education and reforms.
The petitioner proposes that an independent committee headed by a former Supreme Court judge or former High Court Chief Justice examine the trust, assisted by an auditor nominated by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) and other financial and technical experts.
One issue raised concerns a provision in the trust deed under which 11 managing trustees are described as permanent, irrespective of whether they continue to be members of the BCI.
The petition argues that the arrangement warrants independent examination from the perspective of institutional accountability.
Scrutiny Sought of BCI-Linked University in Goa
The proposed inquiry also extends to the India International University of Legal Education and Research (IIULER), Goa, an institution associated with the BCI.
The petitioner seeks scrutiny of appointments, recruitment, promotions and administrative decisions dating back to April 2012 where, according to the plea, there is prima facie material requiring examination.
The records sought include recruitment advertisements, applications, selection committee proceedings, assessment records, appointment orders, service documents, disclosures of relationships and financial approvals.
The petition itself emphasises that the matters raised should not be treated as established wrongdoing and instead calls for an independent examination of the underlying records.
Request to Preserve Records
The plea also asks for protection of original records held by the BCI, its trusts and IIULER.
These include trust deeds, resolutions, meeting agendas and minutes, attendance registers, electronic records and metadata, accounts, bank statements, contracts, tender documents, recruitment files and official correspondence.
The petitioner seeks safeguards to prevent the destruction, alteration or removal of records while the proceedings are pending.
NALSAR Dispute Adds to Scrutiny
The petition comes against the backdrop of recent controversy involving NALSAR University of Law.
The BCI had initially directed action concerning the university’s 2026 graduating batch following a dispute linked to student opposition to the invitation of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to the convocation.
The council subsequently withdrew the controversial direction following criticism.
Mishra later apologised to law students, expressing regret over remarks or communications that may have caused hurt and calling for dialogue rather than escalation.
The episode added to a wider debate over the BCI’s relationship with law universities and the boundaries of student expression.
Earlier Plea Also Sought Term Limits
The latest petition follows another challenge concerning the structure of BCI and State Bar Council leadership.
An earlier petition before the Supreme Court sought limits on the tenure of office-bearers, arguing that prolonged continuation and delayed elections could weaken democratic representation.
Among the proposals was a one-year term for the chairman and vice-chairman, with a maximum of three terms during an individual’s lifetime, alongside a rotational system designed to provide wider regional representation.
The Larger Institutional Question
The petitions raise a question extending beyond the tenure of one office-holder:
How should India’s legal profession ensure that its apex statutory regulator remains representative, accountable and institutionally independent?
The Supreme Court may be called upon to examine the relationship between the Advocates Act, the BCI Rules, the council’s electoral framework and the provisions governing continuation in office.
The financial-audit demands could also bring greater attention to transparency within institutions responsible for regulating India’s legal profession and legal education.
For now, however, the issues remain before the court.
No allegation contained in the petition should be treated as a judicial finding unless and until the Supreme Court determines otherwise.
What Happens Next?
The Supreme Court’s response could determine whether the present challenge develops into a broader examination of BCI governance.
If the court entertains the plea, questions surrounding leadership tenure, electoral practices, institutional independence, financial transparency and governance of BCI-linked institutions could come under closer judicial scrutiny.
The case could therefore have implications extending beyond the current leadership of the Bar Council of India.
At its core, the dispute is about accountability within the institution responsible for regulating India’s legal profession—and the safeguards required to ensure that regulatory authority remains transparent, representative and subject to the rule of law.
