The Supreme Court, while hearing writ petitions challenging the continued tenure of Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra as Chairperson of the Bar Council of India, issued directions to streamline the election process for BCI office-bearers. The bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and including Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, stated that the concerns regarding Mishra’s prolonged tenure could be addressed if the elections to State Bar Councils were expedited.
The Court directed the Chief Justices of the High Courts to complete the co-option of two women members to each State Bar Council within a period of two weeks. Upon completion of this co-option, the State Bar Councils were required to notify their newly constituted composition within one week. Following such notification, the reconstituted State Bar Councils must elect their Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, other office-bearers, and the one representative to the Bar Council of India within three weeks.
The Supreme Court clarified that it would consider the matter of BCI composition only after the completion of the aforementioned exercise by the State Bar Councils. The bench further recorded an undertaking given on behalf of the Bar Council of India that it would involve the Attorney General for India and the Solicitor General of India, who are ex-officio members of the BCI, before taking any major policy decision. The Court observed that both the Attorney General and the Solicitor General shall be actively associated with every policy decision taken by the Bar Council of India.
The Court fixed September 17 as the date to assess compliance with the directions issued regarding the co-option and notification of new State Bar Councils’ composition. The proceedings originated from writ petitions filed by Advocates M Varadhan and Yogamaya MG, which challenged the continued tenure of Manan Kumar Mishra as BCI Chairperson and sought an audit of the BCI’s financial affairs and the BCI-PEARL FIRST TRUST.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, appearing for M Varadhan, submitted that the petitioners raised serious concerns about the continuation of tenure and the necessity of fixing term limits. In response to a query by the Chief Justice regarding the tenure specified under the rules, Divan stated that it was two years. Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh, representing Yogamaya MG, contended that the April 2025 notification, which extended the term of the BCI Chairman until April 2030, had been challenged in the petition. He added that the notification did not specify the legal provision under which it was issued and had not been uploaded on the BCI’s website. Furthermore, as per the notification, V Prabhakaran had been appointed as BCI Vice Chairman until 2030, although he had lost the recently held Bar Council elections.
Justice Bagchi questioned the validity of the notification, asking what the tenure of the Chairman and Vice Chairman was under the rules. Divan replied that it was two years as per Rule 12(2) of the BCI Rules. Justice Bagchi then observed that the notification could not supersede the rules, stating that if the rule holds, it cannot extend beyond 2027, and emphasized that a notification cannot override a statute or empower a body to grant additional tenure beyond what is legally permissible.
Divan further argued that transitional provisions such as Section 4(3) of the Advocates Act, 1961, which are intended to prevent an administrative vacuum during pending elections, were being misused to perpetuate the tenure of existing office-holders. She pointed out that the proviso under Section 4(3) states that every BCI member shall continue to hold office until their successor is elected, and this provision was being used as a license to extend the term of incumbent members indefinitely. She added that the Bar Council elections had been stalled for a long time on the pretext of verifying lawyers’ degrees, and this delay was being exploited to prolong the continuance of the existing office-bearers.
The Chief Justice then inquired about the situation following the recently held State Bar Council elections. Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta, appearing in the proceedings, submitted that the BCI would need to be reconstituted in light of the outcomes of those elections.