What is the challenge against BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra?

On 2 September 2026, a Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana stated that Manan Kumar Mishra will continue as Chairman of the Bar Council of India (BCI) on a “pro tem” or temporary basis until fresh elections are held. The Court directed the BCI to consult the Attorney General and the Solicitor General before making any major policy decision.

The Bench was hearing petitioners who have challenged Mishra’s 12 year tenure and his role as a “permanent trustee” of the BCI’s PEARL-FIRST Trust.

Mishra is a member of the Rajya Sabha from Bihar for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). His name has been in the limelight following controversy over a 13 August BCI notification which withheld the bar enrolment of law students for vocally resisting the CJI’s presence at their convocation. The students, graduates of the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR), Hyderabad, had expressed their stance following the CJI’s remarks on the recent Jantar Mantar protests. The BCI notification was withdrawn within hours. 

Withdrawn letterheads

Mishra was elected as the BCI Chairman on 9 November 2014 and has won seven consecutive elections since. A copy of the petition accessed by the Supreme Court Observer states that several communications were made by Mishra under the BCI letterhead which were said to be the views of the entire legal fraternity. It states that these official communications had no direct nexus with the statutory functions of the BCI under the Advocates Act, 1961. The petition cites several members questioning whether the General Council of the BCI had even authorised the statements. At a time when public communications under the BCI letterhead are withdrawn within hours, it states that there is a need for greater transparency in the decision-making process. 

The BCI has provided no explanation for the NALSAR notifications so far. On 3 September, Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar appeared for two NALSAR alumni who had challenged the notifications and argued that the circumstances of the notification had to be revealed. He said: “We want to know how these letters came to be issued, on whose authority and under what provision of law?” Mishra submitted that the notification was never implemented and the matter should be given a “quietus”. 

Justice Bagchi had also sought an explanation for the notifications when the petition was first taken up on 14 August. At the time, the Court directed the BCI to file a counter affidavit within two weeks. An office report of the Supreme Court states that no such counter affidavit was filed by the BCI as of 2 September 2026. The next day, the CJI-led Bench disposed of the petition stating that the notifications were issued without any authority of law. The disposal provides no explanation for how the notifications were released in the first place. 

A Chairman in perpetuity

A Gazette Notification after Mishra’s seventh election in March 2025 stated that he will continue in office till 16 April 2030—a five year long tenure. The petition argues that the notification is inconsistent with Rule 12(2) of Chapter I, Part II of the Bar Council of India Rules which states that the Chairperson shall hold office for a period of two years. It argues that no General Council or internal resolution can override, amend or supersede a statutory rule. 

The petition flags that elections have been delayed due to pending State Bar Council Elections. Advocates elect members to their respective state bar councils, who in turn elect one representative to the BCI. The representatives then elect the BCI Chairman and Vice-Chairman. The petitioners claim that the indefinite continuation of Mishra due to delay in State Bar Council elections render Rule 12(2) otiose and touches upon “institutional legitimacy” as the leadership has been centralised to one person for a prolonged period of time. 

The CJI-led Bench has not clarified why Mishra’s tenure is to continue pro tem when he is yet to complete a two year tenure as per Rule 12(2). 

Does this suggest that his election in March 2025 is being set aside by the Court? The Court’s 2 September Order is yet to be published on its website. 

PEARL – FIRST “Trust”?

Under Mishra’s chairmanship, a registered Trust Deed was executed by the BCI on 18 September 2020 to institute the “BCI Trust PEARL – FIRST”. Article 3(iii) of the deed provides that 11 Managing Trustees will remain permanent lifetime trustees, irrespective of whether they continue as members of the BCI. Mishra is one of the 11. 

In 2022 the Goa government and the Trust set up a university called the India International University of Legal Education and Research (IIULER), Goa on 59 acres of land. The petitions reveal that Mishra’s son, nephew, sister-in-law and another relative have been appointed to IIULER. A Report on Staff Appointments since 2012 reveals the appointment of 10 other relatives as Joint Secretaries and two relatives as Assistant Grade – I within the BCI. Notably, the Secretary of the BCI, Srimanto Sen, is the son of Mishra’s friend.  

The IIULER website tracks three milestones in legal education: the passing of the Advocates Act; the establishment of the National Law School of India, University under the Bar Council of India Trust, 1974; and the establishment of IIULER under the PEARL – FIRST Trust. The introduction of permanent trusteeship under PEARL – FIRST is described in the petition as a substantial departure from the original 1974 trust. It says that permanent control over a trust responsible for legal education, professional examinations and institutional administration requires judicial scrutiny. It adds that the financial, supervisory and administrative authority of Mishra is presently undisclosed. 

This is all the more relevant as PEARL-FIRST is the entity responsible for conducting the All India Bar Examination (AIBE). The AIBE certifies law graduates to practice at the bar and requires the collection of substantial funds. The petition says that no publicly available record provides details of the bank accounts in which the funds were received, the authority controlling the bank accounts and approving expenditures, audited financial statements, and the extent of the oversight that the General Council of the BCI exercises over PEARL-FIRST. 

Following the NALSAR controversy, BCI Co-Chairman, Y.R. Sadasiva Reddy, wrote a letter to Mishra demanding his resignation and alleged that the trustees of PEARL-FIRST were allegedly chosen by Mishra himself. He pointed out that a sum of ₹150 crore from the BCI was transferred to the new Trust after its formation and alleges that members were unaware of the Trust’s functioning. Moreover, law colleges seeking the approval and renewal of their affiliation with the BCI have been asked to contribute to the Trust. Reddy demanded a special audit by an independent firm.  

What are the petitioners seeking? 

The petitioners have sought a declaration from the Court that the BCI Chairperson must follow a two-year tenure limit which cannot be extended without a statutory procedure. It seeks the quashing of the notification extending Mishra’s tenure to five years for violating Rule 12(2). Perhaps to prevent the release of notifications under the BCI letterhead, the petitions have demanded that the office be declared neutral and independent, free from conflict of interest with partisan political offices. This demand is in light of Mishra being a Rajya Sabha MP. 

It adds that the Court direct the Union and the BCI to frame a two-term limit as Chairperson to prevent the office from being led by one person for a prolonged period of time. With that, it seeks a time-bound election and the removal of Mishra from the post. 

Lastly, the petitioners suggest that an independent committee inquire into the relationship between the 1974 BCI Trust, the PEARL-FIRST trust and IIULER. Inquiry and audit of statutory funds, trust finances, AIBE fees, examine appointments and recruitments has also been sought. 

What has the Supreme Court directed? 

The Supreme Court has moved to expedite elections at the state bar councils and the BCI. 

1. Chief Justices of High Courts are to complete the co-option of two women members in the state bar councils within two weeks. These members must be seniors from the bar or former High Court judges. 
2. State bar councils will notify their new composition within a week after the co-option. 
3. The election to the Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and other office bearers of state bar councils and the BCI will take place within three weeks of the notification of the composition. 

The Court will determine the composition of the BCI after the process is complete. While the NALSAR controversy has reached quietus, the Court’s move suggests that it is currently only focused on Mishra’s tenure as the Chairperson. It is yet to engage with the accusations regarding the PEARL – FIRST Trust. 

The hearing is listed next for 17 September.