Supreme Court Plea Challenges Manan Kumar Mishra’s Long Tenure as BCI Chairman; Seeks Audit of Finances and PEARL-FIRST Trust
A fresh writ petition before the Supreme Court has challenged the continued tenure of senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra as Chairman of the Bar Council of India (BCI), seeking his removal, fresh elections and a judicially supervised mechanism for reforming the apex statutory body regulating the legal profession. The petition has also sought an independent audit of BCI finances, All India Bar Examination receipts and the affairs of the BCI Trust PEARL-FIRST.
The petition, filed by Supreme Court advocate Yogamaya MG through advocate Deepak Prakash, directly questions the legal basis for Mishra’s continued occupation of the chair. It argues that BCI Rule 12(2) prescribes a two-year tenure for the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, while an April 2025 Gazette notification purportedly extending Mishra’s present tenure up to April 2030 cannot override the governing Rules.
Mishra first became BCI Chairman in 2012. After a brief interruption in 2014, he returned to the post on November 9, 2014, and has remained Chairman since then. He was re-elected unopposed in March 2025 for what has been described as his seventh consecutive term.
The petition therefore raises a larger institutional question: whether repeated elections can effectively permit one individual to remain at the head of India’s statutory regulator for lawyers for more than a decade without a cumulative term limit. Earlier litigation has similarly sought fixed terms, a lifetime ceiling on the number of terms and a rotational mechanism to give representatives from different States an opportunity to lead the BCI.
The latest plea goes beyond the question of tenure. It asks for an independent examination of BCI’s financial administration, including statutory funds, All India Bar Examination receipts, institutional income, vendor contracts, related-party transactions and the accounts through which examination fees are received and administered.
A significant part of the petition concerns PEARL-FIRST, the BCI Trust for promotion of legal and professional education and reforms in law. The petitioner seeks an independent committee headed by a former Supreme Court judge or former High Court Chief Justice, assisted by an auditor nominated by the Comptroller and Auditor General and other financial and technical experts.
The petition also raises questions about the Trust deed’s provision concerning permanent managing trustees and the institutional relationship between the BCI, its earlier trust arrangements, PEARL-FIRST and the India International University of Legal Education and Research (IIULER) in Goa. It seeks scrutiny of appointments, recruitment, promotions, administrative decisions and financial approvals relating to these institutions.
The petitioner has specifically asked for preservation and production of original records, including trust deeds, resolutions, meeting minutes, attendance records, electronic records, accounts, bank statements, contracts, tender documents and recruitment records. The request is framed as a safeguard against destruction or alteration of material while the matter remains under judicial consideration.
The challenge comes amid an escalating controversy over the BCI’s handling of the NALSAR University of Law episode. On August 13, the BCI had issued a directive concerning enrolment of NALSAR’s 2026 graduating batch after opposition by some students to the proposed invitation of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as convocation chief guest. The directive was subsequently withdrawn following widespread criticism.
Mishra later apologised to law students and said he regretted the controversy. The Bombay Bar Association, however, subsequently criticised the apology as belated and called for Mishra’s resignation, while supporting the eventual decision to close proceedings against the students.
The controversy has since moved from institutional criticism to street-level protest. Lawyers, including members of the All India Young Advocates Association, demonstrated outside the BCI office in Delhi on August 20, demanding Mishra’s resignation and broader accountability within the Council.
On Friday, August 21, Mishra publicly rejected the resignation demand. He said he would not resign because of pressure from the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) or social-media campaigns and challenged critics to contest Bar Council elections and defeat him through democratic means.
Mishra also objected strongly to the phrase “legal cockroaches”, saying lawyers are members of a respected intellectual profession and that their dignity should not be attacked. His remarks came after CJP-linked criticism and amid the protests demanding his departure from the BCI leadership.
The BCI Chairman has defended his handling of the NALSAR matter, maintaining that he considered the students’ opposition to the proposed CJI invitation deeply objectionable. He has also said that the disputed order was withdrawn shortly after being issued and that the students’ grievances were subsequently heard.
The Supreme Court petition, however, is wider than the NALSAR controversy. Its central argument is that the functioning of a national statutory regulator cannot depend indefinitely on the repeated continuation of the same office-bearers, and that transparent rules on tenure, elections, finances and institutional accountability are necessary regardless of the individual occupying the post.
Importantly, the financial and administrative allegations raised in the petition are claims seeking investigation and independent examination; they should not be treated as established findings against Mishra, the BCI or its associated institutions unless and until a competent authority determines otherwise. The Supreme Court will have to decide whether the reliefs sought—including removal, fresh elections, financial scrutiny and structural reforms—are legally maintainable and justified.
The latest litigation therefore places the BCI at the centre of an unusually broad institutional challenge: the legality of prolonged leadership, the democratic rotation of its office-bearers, the independence of its regulatory decisions, the administration of its finances and trusts, and the accountability of an organisation that exercises statutory authority over India’s legal profession.
