⚡ Key Highlights & Quick Takeaways
- Mishra and the current office-bearers would continue pro tem to ensure the BCI’s day-to-day functioning.“You are a pro tem chairperson.
- Your term is co-terminus with the elections.
- The students had objected to having Chief Justice Kant over for their convocation.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (September 2, 2026) said that senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra is serving only as the “pro tem” chairperson of the Bar Council of India (BCI) until fresh elections are held and directed the apex lawyers’ body to consult the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General before taking any major policy decisions in the interim.
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. Mishra, a BJP Rajya Sabha member, 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.
Days after BCI’s NALSAR about-turn, Justice Nagarathna says not good sign if Bar Council loses respect
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.
Meanwhile, Mr. Mishra and the current office-bearers would continue pro tem to ensure the BCI’s day-to-day functioning.
“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. 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. The students had objected to having Chief Justice Kant over for their convocation. They had dissented against the CJI’s oral remarks, terming youths as “cockroaches” and “parasites”. 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.
“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.
The NALSAR standoff and the BCI’s crisis of authority
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. Sankaranarayanan submitted.
“Can elected members become permanent trustees beyond their capacity?” Justice Bagchi questioned.
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”.
Ms. Gupta, along with advocates Deepak Praskash and Sriram Parakkat, questioned the “uninterrupted continuity” of Mr. 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.
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. Mr. Singh said the participation of the two law officers was in any way part of the statutory scheme under the Advocates Act, 1961. The court recorded Mr. Singh’s submission as an undertaking in its order.
“This cannot be a broad-based and vicious attack; we are looking at institutions and not individuals,” Mr. 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.