Supreme Court Mandates AG and SG’s Involvement in BCI Decisions
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ordered that Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta actively participate in all significant decisions made by the Bar Council of India (BCI). This directive was issued during the hearing of Yogamaya MG vs. Union of India, where concerns were raised regarding the continued tenure of Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra as the BCI Chairman.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana emphasized the necessity of involving the AG and SG in BCI’s policy-making processes. This decision stems from petitions alleging irregularities in the tenure extension of Mishra, who has been serving as the BCI chairman without a clear mandate.
Reconstitution of BCI Post State Bar Elections
The Supreme Court has deferred the decision on the reconstitution of the BCI until the completion of State Bar Council elections. The court directed the newly constituted State Bar Councils to elect their office-bearers and representatives to the BCI within two weeks of notification. Compliance reports from these councils will guide the subsequent steps regarding BCI’s reconstitution under Section 4 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Challenges to Mishra’s Tenure and BCI Governance
The legal contention, initiated by Supreme Court lawyer Yogamaya MG, challenges the continued leadership of Manan Kumar Mishra, citing BCI Rule 12(2) which limits the chairman’s term to two years. The April 2025 notification extending Mishra’s term to 2030 has been argued as unlawful by the petitioner, who also called for a court-supervised election and an investigation into the BCI Trust, known as PEARL Trust.
During the hearing, Justice Bagchi queried the legal basis of the 2025 notification. Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan highlighted the absence of statutory support for the notification that extends the tenure beyond the prescribed two years. The court scrutinized the legality of resolutions extending office-bearers’ terms, which reportedly contradict the Advocates Act.
More Read
Concerns Over BCI Trust and Governance
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan raised issues regarding the PEARL Trust, which was established by the BCI in 2020. The trust, intended to enhance legal education and research, has been accused of lack of transparency and concentration of power. The court discussed the propriety of perpetual trusteeships and the management of BCI assets.
The bench explored the legal framework surrounding the trust’s governance, questioning the legitimacy of naming individuals as permanent trustees despite changes in BCI’s composition. Sankaranarayanan argued for a high-level investigation into the trust’s operations and financial dealings.
Interim Oversight and Future Directions
The court acknowledged the need for interim oversight by the AG and SG in BCI’s policy decisions until a duly elected council is in place. Senior Counsel Maninder Singh, representing the BCI, agreed to the involvement of the AG and SG in significant policy discussions, ensuring transparency and adherence to statutory processes.
With State Bar Council elections underway, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of completing the co-option process and electing representatives to the BCI promptly. The court’s focus remains on institutional integrity rather than individual actions, underscoring the necessity of an elected BCI to uphold democratic values within the legal fraternity.
