The Supreme Court of India conducted a detailed hearing on multiple petitions challenging the prolonged tenure and institutional administrative arrangements concerning Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra. A three-judge bench presided over by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, alongside Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, scrutinized the legal framework governing the office. The bench posed sharp queries to counsel regarding the rules defining the terms of the BCI Chairman and Vice-Chairman, as well as notifications issued at various points in time. The court firmly stated during proceedings that the discussion must remain strictly anchored in the statutory provisions of the Advocates Act rather than personal controversies.
Office Resolutions and the Legal Controversy Over Tenure Extension
At the outset of the hearing, CJI Surya Kant directed counsel to read the previous court order dated January 9. Senior Advocate CU Singh informed the bench that the original resolution dealt primarily with the appointment of the Secretary. However, its concluding paragraph incorporated a decision to extend the tenure of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman from 3 years to 5 years. Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that this text itself constituted a resolution. Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta pointed out another notification issued in the year 2020, which explicitly stipulated a 3-year term. The bench evaluated these conflicting administrative notifications and their statutory validity.
Section 4(3) Application and Allegations of Delayed Elections
Senior Advocate Dewan argued before the bench that these provisions were being utilized to undermine democratic processes and defer elections indefinitely. Justice Bagchi questioned whether Rule 4(3), which provides an independent mechanism for determining tenure, could be invoked to extend holding office beyond regular limits. Advocate Dewan responded that while the initial objective of the provision might have been constructve when enacted, its practical application over time had significantly altered.
When CJI Surya Kant inquired which exact clause was under discussion, Dewan cited Section 4(3) under the Advocates Act. He explained that a BCI member holds office for a term of two years from the date of election or as long as they remain a member of the state bar body. Under this rule, every member continues in office until their successor is duly elected. The petitioners alleged that this transitional mechanism was being exploited to delay elections indefinitely. Dewan further submitted that the voter list verification process was also being used to prolong matters, recalling that in 2023 the Supreme Court had issued explicit directions clarifying that voter verification must not serve as a license to stall elections.
State Bar Council Elections and the Supreme Court's Perspective
During the proceedings, CJI Surya Kant noted that the notifications under reference were from the year 2025 and asked what transpired following the 2026 elections. Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta requested that the BCI body be permitted to undergo reconstitution. Advocate CU Singh submitted that the election process often proceeds uncontested and suggested the court examine this aspect. CJI Surya Kant responded that the court was not examining personal issues at present and emphasized that the bench was deliberating solely on the provisions of law.
The CJI highlighted that elections for State Bar Councils have already concluded, enabling them to select representatives who will subsequently vote for the central body. When Shobha Gupta expressed concern that the incumbent Chairman might continue in office, the CJI remarked that the situation has evolved following the fresh elections. Advocate Dewan stated that no individual currently holds the post officially. CJI Surya Kant reassured that the provision should not cause undue concern as it functions as an interim transitional arrangement, adding that once state-level processes are complete, elected members must exercise their responsibility under Section 4(1)(c) to choose BCI representatives and elect the Chairman.
Gazette Notification of 2025 and Tenure Up to 2030
Senior Advocate Dewan requested the bench to examine excerpts from the BCI March meeting minutes. CJI Surya Kant observed that no relevant documents were attached, remarking that such omissions occur when work is done in haste. Dewan then referred to the Gazette notification dated April 21, 2025, which published the election results for the Chairman and Vice-Chairman posts. He noted that during a meeting chaired by Mr. Suresh Chandra, Manan Mishra was unanimously elected Chairman for a term extending from April 17, 2025, to 2030.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi raised crucial questions regarding the legal tenure limit under BCI rules, stating that if the rules are applied, the term cannot extend beyond 2027. Justice Bagchi highlighted the established legal principle that no administrative notification or executive order can override a statutory enactment or grant an institution tenure beyond statutory limits. Additionally, the hearing touched upon requests seeking to entrust an inquiry to a former judge.
