How long can a BCI chief stay in office? SC plea challenges tenure

New Delhi: A petition filed in the Supreme Court has challenged Bar Council of India chairman Manan Kumar Mishra’s continuation in office, questioning the duration of his tenure and seeking fresh elections, term limits and an independent audit of the BCI’s finances.

The petition, filed by advocate Yogamaya M.G., questions Mishra’s continued tenure as chairman of the Bar Council of India and challenges a Gazette notification that records his current term as running from April 17, 2025, to April 16, 2030.

The plea argues that the BCI Rules provide a two-year tenure for the chairman and vice-chairman, or until they cease to be members, whichever is earlier. It contends that an administrative notification cannot extend the tenure beyond the period prescribed by the rules.

The petitioner has described Mishra’s current tenure as his seventh consecutive term, noting that he first became BCI chairman in 2012, returned to the post in November 2014 and was again elected unopposed in March 2025.

Fresh elections and term limits sought

The plea asks the Supreme Court to quash the April 2025 Gazette notification and direct fresh elections within a fixed timeframe.

It also seeks limits on the number of terms a person can serve as BCI chairman or vice-chairman. The petitioner has proposed a cooling-off period and a rotational system to provide representatives from different states and regions an opportunity to head the statutory body.

The petition further seeks safeguards against bypassing term limits through acting, ad hoc, officiating or interim appointments.

Political neutrality also questioned

The plea raises concerns about institutional neutrality in relation to Mishra’s political activities while serving as BCI chairman.

It refers to his nomination as a BJP Rajya Sabha member in 2024, while clarifying that political affiliation by itself is not being presented as a disqualification. Instead, the petitioner argues that holding political office while heading the statutory regulator for lawyers could raise questions about the body’s perceived independence.

The petition also refers to communications issued through the BCI platform on political and public issues and seeks scrutiny of whether such statements were authorised by the BCI’s General Council and fell within the council’s statutory functions.

Audit of BCI finances sought

A major part of the petition concerns the financial functioning of the BCI and its associated trusts.

The petitioner seeks an independent, time-bound audit covering BCI statutory funds, All India Bar Examination receipts, institutional funds, trust finances, vendor contracts and related-party transactions.

The plea also seeks examination of the handling of AIBE fees paid by law graduates, including the accounts receiving the money, expenditure approvals and audited financial statements.

PEARL-FIRST trust under scrutiny

The petition seeks an independent committee to examine the functioning of the BCI Trust PEARL-FIRST.

The proposed committee would be headed by a former Supreme Court judge or former High Court Chief Justice and assisted by financial and technical experts, including an auditor nominated by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

The plea questions provisions of the trust deed that it says make 11 managing trustees permanent regardless of whether they continue as BCI members.

IIULER appointments also flagged

The petition also seeks an examination of the functioning of the India International University of Legal Education and Research in Goa, including appointments, recruitment, promotions and administrative decisions.

It asks for records relating to advertisements, applications, selection procedures, appointment orders, service records, conflict-of-interest disclosures and financial approvals.

The petitioner has stressed that the allegations should not be treated as established findings and has sought an independent examination of the relevant records.

What the plea seeks

Among its wider demands, the petition seeks:

• Fresh BCI elections within a time-bound period
• Term limits for the chairman and vice-chairman
• A cooling-off period between terms
• Independent audits of BCI funds and associated trusts
• Examination of vendor contracts and related-party transactions
• Greater transparency in BCI meetings and resolutions
• Publication of confirmed meeting minutes
• Preservation of original financial and administrative records
• Disclosure of decisions affecting advocates, students and legal institutions

The petition comes amid wider scrutiny of the BCI’s governance and leadership structure. Its central legal argument concerns the distinction between the two-year tenure prescribed under the BCI Rules and the longer tenure recorded in the 2025 Gazette notification.

The plea also goes beyond the chairman’s tenure by seeking institutional reforms covering elections, financial oversight, political neutrality and affiliated educational and trust structures.

Importantly, the allegations raised in the petition remain claims by the petitioner and are not established judicial findings. The Supreme Court’s response to the petition will determine whether the issues raised warrant judicial examination or directions.