Supreme Court Limits BCI Chairman to Pro Tem Role, Orders AG-SG Participation in Policy Decisions

Author: Jeet Sinha

Case Discussed in this Article: M. VARADHAN Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. W.P.(C) No. 1049/2026; YOGAMAYA M.G. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. W.P.(C) No. 1092/2026

Introduction

The Supreme Court has intervened in the functioning and proposed reconstitution of the Bar Council of India (BCI), holding that its present Chairman, Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, can continue only in a pro tem capacity(temporary capacity) until a freshly constituted BCI elects its office-bearers.

The Court has simultaneously directed that the Attorney General for India and the Solicitor General of India must be actively associated with every policy decision of the BCI during the interim period. It has also prescribed a time-bound roadmap for completing the constitution of State Bar Councils and thereafter reconstituting the BCI.

The order assumes particular significance because the proceedings do not merely concern the tenure of one office-bearer. They raise larger questions about democratic legitimacy, statutory tenure, institutional accountability and the limits of administrative continuity within statutory Bar Councils.

The Bar Council of India is not merely a professional association of advocates. It is a statutory body constituted under Section 4 of the Advocates Act, 1961, with important responsibilities relating to professional standards, legal education, disciplinary regulation and supervision of State Bar Councils. Section 4 provides for a BCI comprising, among others, one elected member from each State Bar Council, while the Attorney General and Solicitor General are ex-officio members.

Against this statutory structure, petitions before the Supreme Court questioned the prolonged continuation of Manan Kumar Mishra as BCI Chairman and challenged the basis of a notification that purportedly extended his tenure up to April 2030.

On September 2, 2026, a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana indicated that the existing arrangement could not be treated as a continuing democratic mandate.

Background of the Dispute

The petitions, including M. Varadhan v. Union of India and Yogamaya M.G. v. Union of India, challenge the continuation of Mishra as BCI Chairman and raise broader institutional issues concerning the functioning of the Bar Council.  According to the petition filed by Yogamaya M.G., Mishra first became BCI Chairman in 2012, briefly demitted office in 2014 and returned to the position in November 2014. He was again elected unopposed in March 2025.

The petitioners particularly questioned the April 2025 notification recording his tenure as Chairman from April 17, 2025 to April 16, 2030. Their argument rests substantially upon Rule 12(2) of the BCI Rules, which provides that the Chairman or Vice-Chairman holds office for two years or until cessation of membership of the BCI, whichever is earlier. The central question therefore became whether an administrative notification could effectively extend a tenure beyond the period contemplated by the governing rules.

Legal Framework Governing the BCI

Section 4(2) of the Advocates Act provides for a Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the BCI, elected by the Council. Section 4(3), meanwhile, provides for the continuation of elected BCI members until their successors are elected. This provision is intended to avoid a vacuum in the constitution of the Council.  However, the petitioners argued that continuation of a member of the Council until a successor is elected cannot automatically translate into an unlimited extension of the separate office of Chairman. This distinction is crucial.

The statutory scheme treats:

• membership of the BCI;
• office of Chairman; and
• constitution of the BCI

as related but legally distinct matters.

The Supreme Court’s present intervention appears to recognise the importance of maintaining that distinction while ensuring that the regulatory body does not become institutionally paralysed.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

A. Can the Chairman continue beyond the two-year tenure prescribed by Rule 12(2)?

B. Does continuation of BCI members until successors are elected permit indefinite continuation of office-bearers?

C. What should happen when the BCI is awaiting reconstitution?

D. Can an elected statutory body create a trust with permanent individual trustees?

Petitioners’ Contentions

The petitioners argued that prolonged continuation at the top of an elected statutory institution undermines its representative character. They relied upon Rule 12(2) to contend that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman have a two-year tenure and that the April 2025 notification extending the Chairman’s tenure to 2030 could not override the statutory framework.

The petitions also raised concerns concerning the BCI’s finances, the PEARL-FIRST Trust, the All India Bar Examination and the absence of effective institutional checks over certain decisions. These are allegations raised in the proceedings and have not, by themselves, been finally adjudicated by the Court.  The controversy was further intensified by the August 2026 dispute involving NALSAR University of Law. The BCI had initially directed State Bar Councils not to enrol the university’s 2026 graduating batch following a student protest concerning the proposed participation of CJI Surya Kant at the university’s convocation. The BCI subsequently withdrew the action, and Mishra apologised to the students.

Supreme Court’s Directions

The Supreme Court did not finally decide all questions concerning Mishra’s tenure at this stage. Instead, it created an interim institutional framework pending reconstitution of the BCI. The Court made it clear that Mishra’s present position is essentially pro tem. As Justice Bagchi indicated, the arrangement is not equivalent to a fresh democratic election; the Chairman can continue for the purpose of managing the day-to-day affairs until the new BCI is constituted.

The Court clarified that on any major policy decision:

“Both the Attorney General for India and the Solicitor General of India shall be actively associated with every policy decision taken by the Bar Council of India.”

Time-bound reconstitution

The Court has also prescribed a sequence for completing the electoral process:

1. High Court Chief Justices are to complete the co-option of two women members to the respective State Bar Councils within two weeks.
2. The newly constituted State Bar Councils must notify their composition within the prescribed subsequent period.
3. They must then elect their Chairpersons, Vice-Chairpersons, other office-bearers and representatives to the BCI.
4. Compliance reports are to be submitted to the Supreme Court.
5. Thereafter, the Court will consider the reconstitution of the BCI under Section 4 of the Advocates Act.

The matter is to be taken up again for assessing compliance with these directions.

The PEARL-FIRST Trust Controversy

An equally significant aspect of the proceedings concerns the BCI-PEARL FIRST Trust.  The Trust was created in 2020 in place of the earlier BCI Trust. Petitioners questioned provisions under which certain managing trustees, including present BCI office-bearers, could continue as permanent trustees even after their tenure in the BCI ended.

Justice Bagchi questioned how an elected statutory body could create a trust in which particular individuals could remain permanent trustees beyond their tenure in the elected body. The constitutional and administrative concern is straightforward: institutional authority ordinarily derives its legitimacy from the legal framework governing the institution. If individuals acquire continuing control over assets or functions connected with an elected statutory body after leaving that body, questions of accountability and institutional legitimacy inevitably arise.

The Supreme Court has not, however, yet adjudicated the legality of the Trust’s structure.

Analysis of Order

The importance of the Supreme Court’s intervention lies less in the immediate fate of an individual office-bearer and more in the principle it reinforces:

Continuity cannot become a substitute for democratic reconstitution.

The Advocates Act permits mechanisms designed to prevent an administrative vacuum. But those mechanisms cannot necessarily be read as conferring an indefinite democratic mandate upon existing office-bearers. The Court’s approach also reflects an important principle of institutional accountability. The BCI regulates the legal profession itself. Its decisions affect advocates, law students, legal education institutions and, indirectly, the administration of justice.

Consequently, questions concerning the legitimacy and accountability of its governing structure carry significance beyond an internal election dispute.

The involvement of the Attorney General and Solicitor General during the interim period is particularly noteworthy because both are already ex-officio members of the BCI under Section 4 of the Advocates Act. The arrangement therefore seeks to introduce an additional layer of institutional participation without immediately displacing the existing administrative machinery.

Conclusion

The judgment of Supreme Court is significant as there were several recent controversy regarding the issues. It has raised a larger institutional question: how should a statutory body governed through an electoral structure function when its elected composition is itself awaiting reconstitution?

By characterising Manan Kumar Mishra’s continuation as pro tem or only holding temporary office, restricting the interim arrangement essentially to day-to-day functioning, requiring the participation of the Attorney General and Solicitor General in policy decisions, and establishing a time-bound route towards reconstitution, the Court has attempted to balance continuity with democratic legitimacy. The proceedings concerning the BCI’s tenure, its electoral structure and the PEARL-FIRST Trust remain significant because they may ultimately clarify the limits of institutional continuity within statutory professional regulators.

The issue of women participation is also discussed. The Author has already written a piece on women participation. Kindly take your time to read it here.