The Supreme Court docket immediately reminded Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra that he’s solely a professional tem Chairman and never a democratically elected office-bearer, and therefore, he can solely handle the day-to-day affairs of the BCI.
The Court docket stated that earlier than taking any main coverage selections, the BCI should contain the Legal professional Normal for India and the Solicitor Normal of India, who’re everlasting ex-officio BCI members.
The observations got here whereas listening to pleas challenging the extended continuation of Mishra as BCI Chairman as past the tenure prescribed beneath the BCI Guidelines.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana noticed that whereas Mishra’s continuation could also be permitted for the day-to-day functioning of the BCI till a brand new Council is constituted, his place can’t be equated with that of a democratically elected Chairman.
Addressing Senior Advocate Guru Krishnakumar, representing the BCI, Justice Bagchi stated, “You must also keep in mind that you’re like a professional tem Chairman until a contemporary election of the Bar Council of India, pursuant to the elections already performed within the State Bar Councils, takes place. So, it isn’t a scenario the place he’s democratically elected and continues to be so. His time period is co-terminus with the elections that are imminent. As a result of the brand new Bar Councils are about to be constituted. So on this scenario, what we usually do is, day-to-day functioning is left to the professional tem Chairman. However each time a coverage determination is taken, a everlasting ex-officio member, just like the Legal professional Normal, should be concerned.”
The bench additional steered that the Legal professional Normal for India and Solicitor Normal, who’re members of the BCI beneath the statutory scheme, may take part in Council conferences when issues having important coverage implications are thought of.
“They needn’t be concerned within the Council’s day-to-day functioning. Nevertheless, each time a call having important coverage implications is taken into account, the Legal professional Normal and Solicitor Normal could be invited to take part,” Justice Bagchi noticed.
Justice Bagchi added that till an elected BCI is constituted, Mishra’s continuation beneath the proviso to Part 4(3) of the Advocates Act could also be permitted for day-to-day functioning, however “each coverage determination should contain the Legal professional Normal.”
Justice Bagchi, clarifying that the Court docket was not encouraging any “shadow-boxing”, nonetheless stated that there was a necessity to make sure institutional integrity. “So until an elected Bar Council of India comes into being, a professional tem continuance of proviso to Part 4(3), could be good for day-to-day functioning, however in the case of coverage selections, it should be within the presence of the Legal professional Normal,” Justice Bagchi stated.
Senior Advocates Maninder Singh and Guru Krishna Kumar agreed to the Court docket’s suggestion to contain the AG and the SG within the BCI selections.
The petitions difficult Mishra’s tenure have been filed within the wake of the NALSAR controversy involving the BCI Chairman, the place he had issued instructions in opposition to the enrolment of NALSAR graduates after they objected to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant being invited as a visitor on the college’s convocation. Mishra subsequently apologised following widespread criticism.
The bench issued directions to expedite the notification of the brand new State Bar Councils, in order that they’ll elect their representatives to the Bar Council of India in a time-bound method. The Court docket’s instructions are geared toward bringing a newly elected BCI on the earliest. The Court docket additionally recorded the endeavor given on behalf of the BCI that the Legal professional Normal for India and the Solicitor Normal might be concerned in any coverage determination.
Senior Advocates Madhavi Divan, Chander Uday Singh, Shobha Gupta(assisted by Advocate Deepak Prakash & AoR Sreeram Parakkat), Sanjay Hegde and Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued from the petitioners’ facet.
Detailed story on the instructions could be learn here- Supreme Court Issues Directions For Faster Election Of New Bar Council Of India Members; Asks BCI To Involve AG & SG For Policy Decisions
Additionally from the listening to – Supreme Court Questions BCI-PEARL FIRST Trust : ‘How Can BCI Office-Bearers Be Permanent Trustees Beyond Their Term?
Circumstances: M. VARADHAN Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. W.P.(C) No. 1049/2026; YOGAMAYA M.G. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. W.P.(C) No. 1092/2026
