The Supreme Court on Tuesday put the functioning of the Bar Council of India (BCI) under a tighter oversight mechanism, directing that the Attorney General (AG) for India and Solicitor General (SG) must be “actively associated” with every policy decision taken by the apex lawyers’ body until it is reconstituted through fresh elections.
To this, the court clarified that the law officers need not become part of the BCI’s day-to-day functioning but should be involved whenever a decision with significant policy implications is being considered.
BCI chairman Mishra had initially directed state bar councils not to enrol the students owing to their protest over inviting the CJI for the convocation, before withdrawing the freeze and eventually closing proceedings against the batch. Mishra subsequently apologised to the students for any hurt caused by his words or the Council’s actions. She argued that a provision intended to prevent an administrative vacuum had effectively been used to avoid elections and perpetuate existing office-holders. Those representatives would thereafter elect the BCI chairman and vice-chairman.
The bench’s directions assume significance coming days after it had criticised the BCI’s intervention in the controversy over the NALSAR University of Law’s 2026 graduating batch. Divan challenged the reliance on the proviso to Section 4(3) of the Advocates Act, which permits BCI members to continue until their successors are elected. The key development, it said, was that newly elected state bar councils must now exercise their statutory power under Section 4(1)(c) of the Advocates Act to elect their representatives to the BCI.
The bench said the proviso was only a transitional and ad hoc mechanism and that the controversy surrounding it may no longer survive now that elections to state bar councils had been completed. “Is there any doubt that the present office-bearers cannot continue indefinitely until 2030?” the court asked. Senior advocate CU Singh said resolutions were presently being issued from the chairman’s office without wider consultation and argued that involvement of the two highest law officers would provide an institutional check during the interim period.
On Tuesday, the bench said that its immediate concern was not the conduct of any individual but the institutional functioning of the BCI and the need to restore the statutory electoral scheme after state bar council elections were held pursuant to the court’s directions.
