The Supreme Court on Wednesday (September 2, 2026) directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) under its “pro-tem” chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra to consult the country’s top law officers, the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, before taking any policy decisions ahead of elections to the apex lawyers’ body.
The hearing before a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant saw petitioners, including young lawyers, raise allegations, including the formation of the BCI Pearl First Trust in 2020 in which Mr. Meanwhile, Mr. Mishra and the current office-bearers would continue pro tem to ensure the BCI’s day-to-day functioning.
Mishra and other BCI office-bearers are “permanent managing trustees”; a tie-up between the Trust and the Goa government to set up a university on 56 acres of land in the State; “jolting” expenditures on felicitations “running into crores”; and an extension of the tenure of BCI chairperson/vice-chairperson to five years. Justice Joymalya Bagchi said the court did not want to encourage “shadow-boxing” around these allegations, but would certainly intervene to “maintain the institutional integrity and credibility” of the BCI till the next bar body elections.
Mishra, as the head of the BCI, had recently earned public ire with an aborted attempt to ban the professional enrolment of the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research’s (NALSAR) batch of 2026. Mishra for more than 12 years as the BCI chairperson since November 2014. “The current term as chairperson of BCI started from April 17, 2025. In view of the mandate of Rule 12(2), Chapter I, Part II of the Bar Council of India Rules, the maximum period of tenure of Chairperson of BCI is two years, but a gazette notification of April 21, 2025 notified the tenure of chairperson and vice-charperson till April 16, 2030,” she submitted. Singh said the participation of the two law officers was in any way part of the statutory scheme under the Advocates Act, 1961. Earlier reporting noted: 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.
“You are a pro-tem chairperson. Your term is co-terminus with the elections. The Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, as permanent ex-officio members of the BCI, would be given prior notice by you and invited to participate in any decision-making process having a policy impact… After all, the Attorney-General is as much a member of the BCI as the chairperson is,” Justice Bagchi observed. Mr. The students had objected to having Chief Justice Kant over for their convocation. Students of other premier National Law Universities, like Delhi and Bengaluru, too had expressed solidarity with their NALSAR counterparts. Significantly, questions had cropped up about whether Mr. Mishra had acted on his own. Even Chief Justice Kant had backed the students’ right to protest. Mr. Mishra had to issue an apology, finally. Sankaranarayanan submitted. “Can elected members become permanent trustees beyond their capacity? Justice Bagchi questioned. Ms. Mr. The court recorded Mr. Singh’s submission as an undertaking in its order. Krishnakumar submitted. The court further directed the Chief Justices of the High Courts to complete the co-option of two women members to State Bar Councils within a fortnight. Following which, State Bar Councils must notify their new composition within a week. The court paved the way for time-bound elections to the central and State-level bar bodies. It ordered that the newly constituted State Bar Councils must elect their chairperson, vice-chairperson, other office-bearers and one representative to the Bar Council of India within three weeks of notification of their composition. The apex court listed the case towards the end of September, following the composition of the BCI. 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.
They had dissented against the CJI’s oral remarks, terming youths as “cockroaches” and “parasites”. “Resolutions are passed without any consultation, and the whole country is put to notice… It is a reassurance to know that the highest law officers have oversight over the BCI now,” senior advocate C.U. Singh, for the petitioners, said. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan questioned the constitution of the Pearl First Trust and the self-assignment of BCI members as trustees “in perpetuation”. He said the financial assets and incomes of the earlier BCI Trust were transferred to the new Trust. “Even after the expiry of their tenures, these people would continue to be permanent managing trustees,” Mr. Senior advocate Madhavi Divan said the financial expenditures pulled out from BCI records were “jolting”. Senior advocate Shobha Gupta, also for petitioners, said what has been seen over the years was the “concentration of powers”. Gupta, along with advocates Deepak Praskash and Sriram Parakkat, questioned the “uninterrupted continuity” of Mr. Senior advocates Maninded Singh and Guru Krishnakumar, appearing for the BCI, said they welcomed the direction to take the concurrence of the highest law officers in policy matters. “This cannot be a broad-based and vicious attack; we are looking at institutions and not individuals,” Mr. Earlier reporting noted: SC questions BCI chief’s 5-year tenure, puts policy decisions under AG, SG watch 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.
Earlier reporting noted: 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.
