The Supreme Court on Wednesday told Bar Council of India Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra that he is only a “pro tem Chairman” of the. country’s apex statutory body for lawyers and cannot claim to continue as a democratically elected chairman until 2030, putting his present tenure on a temporary footing until a freshly constituted BCI elects its office-bearers.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana said Mishra’s present position was linked to the forthcoming constitution and election of a new BCI. “You are like a pro-tem Chairman till a fresh election of the Bar Council of India,” the Bench told the BCI’s counsel, making it clear that the present arrangement could not be equated with a continuing elected mandate. The Court said his term would be co-terminus with the elections, which it described as imminent.
The immediate impact on Mishra is that while he can continue to manage the day-to-day affairs of the BCI during the transition, the Court has placed an additional check on its policy-making. The Court recorded an undertaking from the BCI that the Attorney General for India and the Solicitor General of India, both ex-officio members of the BCI, will be “actively associated with every policy decision” taken by the council.
The Court’s directions effectively mean that Mishra’s present continuation cannot be treated as an extension of the five-year tenure that had been notified in 2025 up to 2030. Instead, his position will last only until the electoral process results in the constitution of a new BCI and the election of its office-bearers. The Court has not, however, ordered Mishra’s immediate removal from the BCI or stopped him from handling its routine affairs.
The order came on petitions filed by advocates M. Varadhan and Yogamaya M.G., challenging the prolonged continuation of Mishra as BCI chairman and raising issues concerning the functioning and financial affairs of the BCI and the BCI-PEARL FIRST Trust.
The Supreme Court has now sought to expedite the process that will ultimately determine Mishra’s successor. It directed the Chief Justices of the respective High Courts to complete the co-option of two women members to the State Bar Councils within two weeks. The State Bar Councils are then required to notify their composition within one week. Thereafter, the newly constituted councils will elect their chairpersons, vice-chairpersons, other office-bearers and representatives to the BCI within the time prescribed by the Court. The Court will consider the reconstitution of the BCI after receiving compliance reports.
Mishra has been at the helm of the BCI for most of the period since 2012. He first became BCI chairman in 2012 and, after briefly demitting office in 2014, returned to the post in November 2014. He was re-elected chairman in March 2025 for a seventh consecutive term.
His latest election had itself become a point of contention in the legal challenge. The petitioners questioned the validity of his prolonged continuation and challenged the BCI notification that purported to give the chairman and vice-chairman a five-year tenure. They relied on Rule 12(2) of the BCI Rules, which provides for a two-year term for the chairman and vice-chairman.
Mishra’s position is also unusual because he simultaneously holds elected political office. He is a BJP Rajya Sabha member from Bihar. He was elected unopposed to the Rajya Sabha on 28 August 2024 as the BJP-NDA candidate in a by-election. His present Rajya Sabha term runs from 28 August 2024 to 7 July 2028.
His political role has figured in the litigation, although the challenge does not simply argue that his BJP affiliation makes him ineligible to head the BCI. The petition has instead raised concerns about the institutional implications of a person simultaneously holding political office and leading the statutory body that regulates legal education and the legal profession.
The Supreme Court’s intervention comes shortly after a controversy involving Mishra and law students. In August, the BCI had directed State Bar Councils not to enrol the graduating batch of NALSAR University of Law after students objected to the proposed participation of CJI Surya Kant at their convocation. The BCI subsequently withdrew the restriction, and Mishra apologised to law students following criticism of the action.
The Supreme Court also questioned the BCI-PEARL FIRST Trust during Wednesday’s proceedings, particularly provisions that appeared to allow BCI office-bearers to continue as trustees even after they ceased to hold office in the council. The Bench questioned how members of an elected statutory body could become permanent trustees of a trust created by that body.
For Mishra, the central consequence of Wednesday’s proceedings is therefore not an immediate ouster but a change in the legal character of his continuation. The Supreme Court has expressly characterised him as a pro-tem chairman pending a fresh BCI election, while placing policy decisions under the active involvement of the Attorney General and Solicitor General and setting a time-bound process for constituting the body that will eventually elect the next BCI leadership.
