'Only Pro-tem Chairman': Supreme Court To BCI Chairman On Pleas Challenging His Tenure

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the Bar Council of India (BCI) must consult the Attorney General (AG) and Solicitor General (SG) before making any policy decision.

The matter came up before a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana. The bench was hearing pleas challenging the legality of BCI chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra's prolonged tenure and seeking his removal from the post.

The bench said the Chief Justices of the High Courts are requested to complete the co-option of two women members to state bar councils (SBCs) within two weeks. The bench said SBCs must notify their new composition within one week after the HC CJs complete the co-option.

The bench said the newly constituted SBCs must elect their chairperson, vice chairperson, other office bearers and the one representative to the BCI within three weeks from the notification of their composition. It further said the newly constituted SBCs are directed to elect their statutorily prescribed office-bearers, including their respective representatives to the BCI, within two weeks from the date on which their composition is notified.

The bench said all the state bar councils are directed to submit their compliance reports. Upon receiving these compliance reports, the bench will consider the issue concerning the reconstitution of the Bar Council of India under Section 4 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

Regarding any policy decision taken by BCI, the bench said the AG and SG should be actively associated before the decision is made.

The bench said it will consider the matters on September 17 to ascertain compliance with the directions on co-option and notification of new state bar councils' composition.

The bench also said Mishra’s continuance in office cannot be treated as an arrangement extending up to 2030. The bench observed that prima facie his position is only a “pro tem” continuation until a freshly constituted BCI elects its office-bearers.

The bench stressed that its immediate concern was not the conduct of any individual. Its focus, it said, was on BCI’s institutional functioning and the need to restore the statutory electoral scheme after state bar council elections were held pursuant to the court’s directions.

Senior advocate Madhavi Divan, representing some petitioners, contended that Mishra was unanimously elected chairman on March 2, 2025, for a term beginning April 17, 2025 and ending April 16, 2030.

It was argued that a January 9, 2025, resolution purported to extend the tenure of the chairman and vice-chairman from three years to five years, even though the rules prescribed only two years.

The bench asked how such an extension could operate when the rules prescribed a two-year tenure. “Interestingly, it purports to extend the tenure from three years to five years, whereas the rules prescribe only two years,” observed the bench.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan referred to the creation in 2020 of the Bar Council of India Trust for Promotion of Education, Legal and Professional Reforms and Improvement in Research (PEARL Trust). It was alleged that its deed made 11 managing trustees “original and permanent trustees” irrespective of their tenure as BCI members.

The bench questioned whether an elected body like the BCI could legitimately use its assets to set up a trust. It further asked if individuals could remain permanent trustees even after ceasing to be members of the body that created it.