The Supreme Court docket on Wednesday (September 2, 2026) directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) underneath its “pro-tem” chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra to seek the advice of the nation’s high legislation officers, the Legal professional Normal and the Solicitor Normal, earlier than taking any coverage choices forward of elections to the apex legal professionals’ physique.
The listening to earlier than a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant noticed petitioners, together with younger legal professionals, elevate allegations, together with the formation of the BCI Pearl First Belief in 2020 through which Mr. Mishra and different BCI office-bearers are “everlasting managing trustees”; a tie-up between the Belief and the Goa authorities to arrange a college on 56 acres of land within the State; “jolting” expenditures on felicitations “working into crores”; and an extension of the tenure of BCI chairperson/vice-chairperson to 5 years.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi stated the court docket didn’t wish to encourage “shadow-boxing” round these allegations, however would definitely intervene to “keep the institutional integrity and credibility” of the BCI until the subsequent bar physique elections.
In the meantime, Mr. Mishra and the present office-bearers would proceed professional tem to make sure the BCI’s day-to-day functioning.
“You’re a pro-tem chairperson. Your time period is co-terminus with the elections. The Legal professional-Normal and the Solicitor-Normal, as everlasting ex-officio members of the BCI, could be given prior discover by you and invited to take part in any decision-making course of having a coverage influence… In spite of everything, the Legal professional-Normal is as a lot a member of the BCI because the chairperson is,” Justice Bagchi noticed.
Mr. Mishra, as the pinnacle of the BCI, had lately earned public ire with an aborted try and ban the skilled enrolment of the Nationwide Academy of Authorized Research and Analysis’s (NALSAR) batch of 2026. The scholars had objected to having Chief Justice Kant over for his or her convocation. That they had dissented towards the CJI’s oral remarks, terming youths as “cockroaches” and “parasites”. College students of different premier Nationwide Legislation Universities, like Delhi and Bengaluru, too had expressed solidarity with their NALSAR counterparts.
Considerably, questions had cropped up about whether or not Mr. Mishra had acted on his personal. Even Chief Justice Kant had backed the scholars’ proper to protest. Mr. Mishra needed to challenge an apology, lastly.
“Resolutions are handed with none session, and the entire nation is put to note… It’s a reassurance to know that the best legislation officers have oversight over the BCI now,” senior advocate C.U. Singh, for the petitioners, stated.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan questioned the structure of the Pearl First Belief and the self-assignment of BCI members as trustees “in perpetuation”. He stated the monetary belongings and incomes of the sooner BCI Belief have been transferred to the brand new Belief.
“Even after the expiry of their tenures, these folks would proceed to be everlasting managing trustees,” Mr. Sankaranarayanan submitted.
“Can elected members turn into everlasting trustees past their capability?” Justice Bagchi questioned.
Senior advocate Madhavi Divan stated the monetary expenditures pulled out from BCI data have been “jolting”.
Senior advocate Shobha Gupta, additionally for petitioners, stated what has been seen through the years was the “focus of powers”.
Ms. Gupta, together with advocates Deepak Praskash and Sriram Parakkat, questioned the “uninterrupted continuity” of Mr. Mishra for greater than 12 years because the BCI chairperson since November 2014.
“The present time period as chairperson of BCI began from April 17, 2025. In view of the mandate of Rule 12(2), Chapter I, Half II of the Bar Council of India Guidelines, the utmost interval of tenure of Chairperson of BCI is 2 years, however a gazette notification of April 21, 2025 notified the tenure of chairperson and vice-charperson until April 16, 2030,” she submitted.
Senior advocates Maninded Singh and Guru Krishnakumar, showing for the BCI, stated they welcomed the course to take the concurrence of the best legislation officers in coverage issues. Mr. Singh stated the participation of the 2 legislation officers was in any manner a part of the statutory scheme underneath the Advocates Act, 1961. The court docket recorded Mr. Singh’s submission as an enterprise in its order.
“This can’t be a broad-based and cruel assault; we’re establishments and never people,” Mr. Krishnakumar submitted.
The court docket additional directed the Chief Justices of the Excessive Courts to finish the co-option of two ladies members to State Bar Councils inside a fortnight. Following which, State Bar Councils should notify their new composition inside every week.
The court docket paved the best way for time-bound elections to the central and State-level bar our bodies.
It ordered that the newly constituted State Bar Councils should elect their chairperson, vice-chairperson, different office-bearers and one consultant to the Bar Council of India inside three weeks of notification of their composition.
The apex court docket listed the case in the direction of the top of September, following the composition of the BCI.
Revealed – September 02, 2026 04:49 pm IST
