Challenge against prolonged tenure of BCI Chairperson
Yogamaya M.G. v Union of India
The Supreme Court will decide BCI Chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra's five-year tenure violates Rule 12(2) of the BCI Rules
Pending
Parties
Petitioners: Yogamaya M.G., M. Varadhan
Lawyers: Senior Advocates Shobha Gupta, Madhavi Divan, C.U. Singh, Gopal Sakaranarayanan ; Advocate Sriram Parakkat; AORs Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Deepak Prakash
Respondents : Union of India, Bar Council of India, Chairman, Chairperson, Vice-Chairman, Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh, Bar Council of Assam, Bihar State Bar Council, Bar Council of Chhattisgarh, Bar Council of Delhi, Bar Council of Gujarat, Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh, Bar Council of Jammu and Kashmir, Bar Council of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, Jharkhand State Bar Council, Bar Council of Karnataka, Bar Council of Kerala, Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, Bar Council of Manipur, Bar Council of Meghalaya, Odisha State Bar Council, Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, Bar Council of Rajasthan, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, Bar Council of Telangana, Bar Council of Tripura, Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, Bar Council of Uttarakhand, Bar Council of West Bengal, Mannan Kumar Mishra, S. Prabakaran, Ved Prakash Sharma, Y.R. Sadasiva Reddy, Apurba Kumar Sharma, Suresh Chand Shrimali, Manoj Kumar N, Shreenath Tripathi, A. Rami Reddy, Jitendra Sharma, Ashok Kumar Deb, Suvir Sidhu, Bhakta Bhushan Barik, P. Vishnuvardhana Reddy, Shailendra Dubey, D.K. Sharma, Prasashant Kumar Singh, Ashish Panjabrao Deshmukh, Dilip K. Patel, Amit Vaid, R. Venkataramani, Tushar Mehta, Srimanto Sen, Ashok Pandey, J.R. Sharma, Nalin Raj Chaturvedi, Awanish Kumar Pandey
Lawyers: Senior Advocates Maninder Singh, Guru Krishnakumar
Case Details
Case Number: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1092/2026
Next Hearing: September 23, 2026
Last Updated: September 4, 2026
TAGS: Bar Council of India, BCI, Chaiperson, Tenure
Key Issues
Whether the five-year tenure notified for the Chairperson and Vice-Chairman of the BCI is contrary to Rule 12(2), Chapter I, Part II of the BCI Rules, which prescribes a two-year tenure?
Whether the proviso to Section 4(3) of the Advocates Act, 1961, permitting an elected BCI member to continue until a successor is elected, can extend the tenure of the Chairperson beyond that prescribed under Rule 12(2)?
Whether Rule 32 of the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015, insofar as it permits continuation of elected members and office-bearers of state bar councils beyond the tenure and limited extension prescribed under Sections 8 and 8A of the Advocates Act, is ultra vires the parent Act?
Whether the exercise of the BCI’s statutory powers through communications and regulatory directions not authorised by the General Council or beyond the functions enumerated under Section 7 of the Advocates Act is lawful?
Whether the constitution and functioning of BCI Trust PEARL-FIRST, including its permanent Managing Trusteeship and management of funds connected with the BCI, are subject to the requirements of transparency, accountability and institutional governance under the Advocates Act and the Constitution?
Case Description
The Advocates Act, 1961 establishes the Bar Council of India (BCI) and state bar councils. It provides for their constitution and functions. Section 4 concerns the constitution of the BCI and election of its Chairperson and Vice-Chairman from among its members. Section 8 prescribes the tenure of state bar council members, while Section 8A provides for a Special Committee where elections are not held within the prescribed period.
Rule 12(2), Chapter I, Part II of the Bar Council of India Rules provides that the Chairperson and Vice-Chairman shall hold office for two years or until cessation of membership of the BCI, whichever is earlier.
Advocate Yogamaya M.G. has challenged the continued tenure of Manan Kumar Mishra as BCI Chairperson. The petition states that Mishra was elected Chairperson on 9 November 2014 and has continued through successive terms. He was again elected unopposed on 2 March 2025, for his seventh consecutive term. The Gazette notification dated 21 April 2025 records the tenure of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairman from 17 April 2025 to 16 April 2030. The petition contends that the five-year tenure is contrary to Rule 12(2), which prescribes a two-year term. The petition contends that the proviso to Section 4(3) of the Advocates Act, which permits an elected BCI member to continue until a successor is elected, does not extend the separate tenure of the Chairperson beyond the period prescribed by Rule 12(2). It also challenges the absence of a cumulative limit on successive terms and seeks term limits and rotation for the Chairperson and Vice-Chairman.
The petition refers to Mishra’s election to the Rajya Sabha from Bihar on 21 August 2024 while serving as BCI Chairperson. It also cites a petition in the Delhi High Court had alleged that the office of the Chairperson was an office of profit. This petition was dismissed on 7 October 2024 for want of the prescribed procedure. The petition attaches the BCI’s 23 July communication on student protests and its 13 August direction against enrolling NALSAR’s 2026 graduates. The 13 August direction was withdrawn the same day. The petition questions whether such measures were authorised by the General Council and within the BCI’s statutory functions.
The petition also questions BCI Trust PEARL-FIRST, constituted by a registered Trust Deed dated 18 September 2020, under which the BCI is a settlor and 11 Managing Trustees hold office permanently irrespective of their BCI membership. It seeks scrutiny of the Trust and the BCI’s financial and administrative affairs, including statutory funds, All India Bar Examination receipts, Trust finances, vendor contracts, related-party transactions and appointments. The reliefs include quashing the 21 April 2025 notification insofar as it provides a five-year tenure, enforcing the two-year tenure under Rule 12(2), fresh elections, term limits and rotation, and independent scrutiny of the BCI and PEARL-FIRST, besides an interim independent administrative committee to ensure continuity of the BCI’s functions.
Varadhan’s petition concerns the functioning, administration and electoral process of the BCI and state bar councils. His earlier petition, filed in 2023, challenged Rule 32 of the BCI Certificate and Place of Practice Rules. The rule permitted continuation of elected state bar council members beyond their prescribed tenure in specified circumstances. The Supreme Court subsequently issued directions for completion of pending state bar council elections. On 4 August, it disposed of the petition after recording that the effective prayers had been addressed through its interim orders, while leaving the validity of Rule 32 open. The petition seeks directions concerning the timely constitution and functioning of the state bar councils and the BCI. It also addresses the effect of continuation of elected state bar council members beyond their prescribed tenure, since state bar councils elect representatives to the BCI.
On 2 September, the Supreme Court directed the Chief Justices of the concerned High Courts to complete the co-option of two women members to the state bar councils within two weeks. The newly constituted state bar councils must then elect their office-bearers and representatives to the BCI within three weeks. The Court said it would consider the constitution of the BCI after this exercise. It also recorded the BCI’s undertaking that the Attorney General for India and Solicitor General for India would be actively associated with every policy decision of the BCI. Mishra was to continue only as a pro tem Chairperson to handle the day-to-day functioning of the BCI pending constitution of the new Council.