A Bar Council of India member has backed a petition challenging the Chairman’s continuation, telling the Supreme Court in an affidavit that key decisions, including the NALSAR enrolment-bar action, were taken in the BCI’s name without being placed before its members, and that the Attorney General and Solicitor General, though ex-officio members, were not sent notices or agendas of meetings. These are the member’s allegations, yet to be tested.
New Delhi: A member of the Bar Council of India (BCI) has told the Supreme Court, in a reply affidavit, that important decisions and communications have repeatedly been taken or issued in the name of the BCI without deliberation among its members, and that the Attorney General for India and the Solicitor General of India, who are ex-officio members of the Council, were not given notice and agendas of its meetings [Yogamaya MG v. Union of India and Others].
BCI member N. Manoj Kumar filed the affidavit in the writ petition moved by advocate Yogamaya MG challenging the continuation of Manan Kumar Mishra as BCI Chairman, largely supporting the concerns raised in the petition about the functioning, governance and finances of the statutory body of advocates.
‘Unilateral decision-making’
Mr. Kumar has contended that the statutory authority under the Advocates Act is vested in the BCI collectively and cannot be converted into the individual authority of an office-bearer, alleging a consistent pattern of unilateral decision-making. Agendas, he said, were on several occasions circulated or posted in messaging groups only shortly before meetings, leaving members insufficient time to study matters; minutes of meetings were never circulated for confirmation and approval; and important institutional and policy decisions were communicated in the BCI’s name without the underlying deliberations or resolutions being placed before members.
The NALSAR action
According to the affidavit, the August 13 direction issued by the BCI Chairman to stop the enrolment of the 2026 graduating batch of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, was not placed before the General Council for deliberation, and no resolution authorising the action was disclosed. Mr. Kumar said he had written to the Chairman objecting to the action; although the direction was subsequently withdrawn, he contended that the incident demonstrated a pattern of unilateral exercise of institutional authority contrary to the statutory scheme, which vests such authority in the collective Council.
Law officers ‘not given notices’
Mr. Kumar stated that, although the Advocates Act provides for the Attorney General and the Solicitor General to be ex-officio members of the BCI, notices and agendas of meetings were not circulated to them, effectively preventing their meaningful participation. He said he had raised the issue with the Chairman and been assured that notices and agendas would be circulated to the law officers for future meetings, but that the assurance was not complied with and the practice continued.
The submissions assume significance against the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s observations earlier this month that, until a newly elected BCI is constituted, Mr. Mishra’s continuation should be treated as a pro tem arrangement for day-to-day functioning, and that the Attorney General should be involved in policy decisions, the Court having suggested involving the AG and SG when matters with significant policy implications are considered.
PEARL-FIRST Trust and AIBE receipts
The affidavit also raises concerns about the BCI Trust, PEARL-FIRST. Mr. Kumar said that, despite repeated requests, he was not furnished the original Trust Deed for a considerable period, and that on examining the 2020 Trust Deed he found provisions constituting certain persons as “Permanent Managing Trustees”, allowing them to continue even after ceasing to be BCI members, a feature the Supreme Court had itself questioned at a hearing on September 2.
He also questioned the financial arrangements between the BCI and PEARL-FIRST in relation to the All India Bar Examination (AIBE), asking under what authority receipts arising from the AIBE, which he described as a regulatory function of the BCI, could be credited or transferred to a separate Trust, and sought the complete accounting trail of AIBE receipts, including the accounts into which fees were credited, transfers between the BCI and the Trust, payments to examination agencies and vendors, and the utilisation of any surplus.
Chairman’s five-year tenure questioned
On the continuation of Mr. Mishra as Chairman, Mr. Kumar questioned the legal basis for a five-year tenure, referring to Rule 12(2), Chapter I, Part II of the BCI Rules, which he said prescribes a two-year tenure for the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, or until cessation of membership, whichever is earlier. He contrasted this with an April 2025 gazette notification recording Mr. Mishra’s tenure from April 17, 2025 to April 16, 2030, describing the difference as an apparent inconsistency requiring examination.
Why it matters
The affidavit is significant because it comes not from an outside petitioner but from within the Council itself, a sitting member lending support, from the inside, to allegations about how the apex regulator of the legal profession takes its decisions. The central legal contention, that the Advocates Act vests authority in the BCI as a collective body and not in any single office-bearer, goes to the heart of the petition: if key decisions are in fact taken without the deliberation the statute contemplates, their validity, and the manner of the Council’s functioning, become questions for the Court.
The concerns dovetail with the Supreme Court’s own recent posture. Having already characterised the Chairman’s continuation as a pro tem arrangement and pressed for the involvement of the law officers in policy decisions, the Court now has, on affidavit, a member’s account of the very exclusions, of the General Council, and of the ex-officio AG and SG, that its observations were directed against. The PEARL-FIRST and AIBE-accounting questions add a financial dimension the Court had also begun to probe, on the permanence of trustees and the routing of examination receipts.
It bears emphasis that these are the assertions of one member in a contested proceeding, and remain untested; the BCI and its Chairman are yet to respond to them on the record, and no finding has been made on any of the allegations. The NALSAR direction, it may be noted, was withdrawn, and the tenure and governance questions are precisely what the Court is now seized of. What the affidavit does is place a detailed insider account before the Court, to be weighed, along with the responses of the BCI, as the challenge to the Chairman’s continuation and to the Council’s functioning proceeds.
Case Title: Yogamaya MG v. Union of India and Others [W.P.(C) No. 1092/2026]
Forum: Supreme Court of India
Affidavit: Reply affidavit of BCI member N. Manoj Kumar, filed through Advocate-on-Record Biju P. Raman
Status: Affidavit supporting the petition challenging Manan Kumar Mishra’s continuation as BCI Chairman and raising governance and finance concerns. Allegations untested; the BCI is yet to respond on record. Matter pending.