The Supreme Court clarified that BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra’s continuance in the post does not mean he can remain in office until 2030.
Published: September 2, 2026, 3:54 PM IST
Share Article
https://www.india.com/news/india/supreme-court-question-bar-council-of-india-chief-manan-mishra-5-year-term-seeks-clarity-on-policy-decisions-8515285/
SC bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana made it clear that Manan Kumar Mishra’s continuation as BCI chairman does not amount to a term running until 2030File image/PTI
The Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered closer oversight of the Bar Council of India, saying the Attorney General (AG) and Solicitor General (SG) must be involved in all policy decisions of the apex lawyers’ body until its reconstitution through fresh elections.
The Supreme Court bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana made it clear that Manan Kumar Mishra’s continuation as BCI chairman does not amount to a term running until 2030Prima facie, the court said, his tenure is only a “pro tem” arrangement and will continue until the newly constituted BCI elects its office-bearers.
The matter came up during a hearing on petitions concerning state bar council elections, with a fresh challenge being raised against Mishra’s continuation as BCI chairmanThe petitions also questioned the validity of notifications that purportedly extended the tenure of the chairman and vice-chairman until 2030.
Why SC direction is significant?
The court’s latest directions come days after it took exception to the BCI’s handling of the controversy involving NALSAR University of Law’s 2026 graduating batchMishra had initially directed state bar councils to withhold the students’ enrolment after they protested against the CJI being invited to their convocationThe BCI later lifted the freeze and closed the proceedings against the studentsMishra also apologised for any hurt caused by his remarks or the Council’s actions.
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.
Also Read | National Law School cancels convocation amid controversy around CJI, BCI Chief row
The controversy before the court centred on BCI notifications issued in 2025 that purported to give Mishra and vice-chairperson S Prabhakaran a five-year tenure, despite submissions that Rule 12(2) of the BCI Rules prescribes a two-year tenure for the chairman and vice-chairman.
Senior advocate Madhavi Divan, representing the petitioners, submitted that Mishra was unanimously elected as BCI chairman on March 2, 2025, with his term scheduled to run from April 17, 2025, to April 16, 2030She highlighted that a January 9, 2025, resolution sought to extend the tenure of the chairman and vice-chairman from three to five years, although the rules prescribed a two-year tenure.
The bench raised questions over the validity of the extension, pointing out that 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,” it remarked.
Divan challenged the use of the proviso to Section 4(3) of the Advocates Act, under which BCI members can continue in office until their successors are electedShe submitted that the provision, intended to ensure continuity and avoid an administrative vacuum, was effectively being used to sidestep elections and prolong the tenure of the existing office-holders.
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.
The bench highlighted that newly elected state bar councils are required to use their statutory power under Section 4(1)(c) of the Advocates Act to choose their representatives to the BCIThe elected representatives would subsequently elect the chairman and vice-chairman of the BCIThe court asked, “Is there any doubt that the present office-bearers cannot continue indefinitely until 2030?”
The bench also examined concerns over the concentration of authority within the BCI, particularly allegations relating to trusts controlled by its current and former office-bearers.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan pointed to the PEARL Trust, formally known as the Bar Council of India Trust for Promotion of Education, Legal and Professional Reforms and Improvement in Research, which was established in 2020He alleged that the trust deed made 11 managing trustees “original and permanent trustees” irrespective of their tenure as members of the BCI.
