The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed that Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta must actively participate in every policy decision taken by the Bar Council of India (BCI), while putting the reconstitution of the apex regulatory body on hold until elections across all State Bar Councils are completed.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana ordered newly constituted State Bar Councils to finalize their statutory office-bearers and elect their BCI representatives within two weeks of notifying their composition. While current BCI leadership has been permitted to oversee routine administrative affairs in the interim, the bench ruled that no policy determinations can proceed without the direct involvement of the central government’s two senior-most law officers.
The directions emerged during hearings on a batch of petitions, including a lead plea by advocate Yogamaya MG, which challenged the prolonged tenure of Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra as BCI chairperson and flagged alleged irregularities in a BCI-managed trust.
State Bar Compliance Precedes Council Restructuring
The bench refrained from issuing adverse orders against Mishra, clarifying that the reconstitution of the national council under Section 4 of the Advocates Act, 1961, will be addressed only after state-level bodies submit their compliance reports.
Chief Justice Kant stressed during the proceedings that the judiciary is reviewing the statutory framework governing the institution rather than focusing on any individual. The court instructed all State Bar Councils to conclude their co-option processes and transmit their compliance records within the two-week timeframe, scheduling the next hearing at the close of that period.
Senior Advocates Guru Krishna Kumar and Maninder Singh, representing the BCI and its office-bearers, confirmed to the court that the regulatory body had no objection to adhering to the election timeline and agreed to circulate all policy matters to the Attorney General and Solicitor General for active consultation.
Tenure Extensions Under Judicial Scrutiny
A primary grievance raised by the petitioners concerns the legal validity of successive extensions granted to the BCI leadership. Senior Advocates Madhavi Divan, CU Singh, Sanjay Hegde, and Shobha Gupta argued that BCI Rule 12(2) explicitly limits the tenure of both the chairperson and vice-chairperson to two years.
The petitioners highlighted an April 21, 2025 gazette notification that extended Mishra’s term through April 16, 2030, following a March 2025 council resolution that altered the term from three years to five years. The court noted that a comparable five-year extension had also been granted in 2020. Counsel argued that these resolutions bypassed statutory rules, had not been promptly uploaded to the BCI website, and purported to continue the tenure of former Vice-Chairman S Prabhakaran despite his defeat in subsequent elections.
Bench members observed that administrative resolutions cannot supersede established statutory rules, questioning the legal authority under which an elected body could unilaterally prolong its leadership’s mandate beyond statutory caps.
Concerns Raised Over PEARL Trust Formation
The court also examined allegations presented by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan regarding the 2020 establishment of the PEARL Trust (Bar Council of India Trust for Promotion of Education, Legal and Professional Reforms and Improvement in Research), which replaced the original 1974 BCI Trust.
Counsel submitted that assets of the 1974 trust were transferred to the PEARL Trust, where 11 individuals—including Mishra—were designated permanent managing trustees for life, irrespective of whether they retain membership in the BCI. The petitioners raised concerns over governance transparency, citing a university venture on 56 acres in Goa, an Amravati project tender, an annual recorded income of ₹4.41 crore, and the dismissal of the original trust’s staff, while pressing for a court-monitored inquiry into both the trust and All India Bar Examination finances.
The bench questioned how an elected corporate entity could settle public assets onto individuals in perpetuity, remarking that permanent trusteeship can legally attach to an ex-officio station rather than to specific persons after their elected mandates expire.
BCI counsel opposed the allegations, arguing that miscellaneous grievances should not expand the scope of the proceedings. The bench reiterated that questions surrounding the trust’s structure and the validity of tenure notifications will be evaluated once the state compliance reports are placed on record.
