NEW DELHI: With two PILs heaping allegations against functioning of advocates regulatory body Bar Council of India and questioning legality of its Apr 2025 resolution giving a five-year term to chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra, Supreme Court Wednesday said no resolution can override the statutorily prescribed two-year term.A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said even if a BCI resolution generously gives a five-year term to the chairperson, his tenure ex-facie cannot exceed beyond 2027 notwithstanding the legality of the resolution.Petitioners question lavish spendNo resolution can alter the statutorily provided two-year tenure for the chairperson,” the bench said.The petitioners questioned the lavish spending of crores on felicitation functions, organising seminars and alleged misuse of Bar Council of India trust funds to open law colleges in states and demanded a high-level inquiry into the council’s affairs.The bench said the elections to state bar councils had been completed and directed the completion of co-option of women members by the high court chief justices concerned in consultation with newly elected members within two weeks.The entire composition of state bar councils, including co-opted women members, would be notified within a week thereafter.
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
It said the newly formed state bar councils would elect their representative to BCI a week later to enable the latter to conduct fresh election of the chairperson and the vice-chairperson.Till then, the BCI governing body would act in a pro tem manner and not take any policy decision.On the bench’s suggestion, the council volunteered to invite the attorney general and the solicitor general to its meetings.Mishra has been chairperson of BCI since Nov 9, 2014.The petitioners asked whether a statutory authority entrusted with “regulating more than 20 lakh advocates, administering legal education, conducting the All India Bar Examination, exercising disciplinary jurisdiction, and safeguarding independence of the legal profession, can lawfully permit prolonged concentration of regulatory authority in the same hands through successive and substantially uncontested terms”.
