New Delhi, Sept. 2: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it would consider reconstitution of the Bar Council of India (BCI) after completion of State Bar Council elections and co-option of two women members by the Chief Justices of the respective High Courts, while directing that the existing BCI set-up would, in the meantime, confine itself to day-to-day affairs and associate the Attorney General and Solicitor General — both ex-officio members of the BCI — with decisions having significant policy implications.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana directed that the process of constituting the newly elected State Bar Councils be completed, including the co-option of two women members by the Chief Justice of the respective High Court, following which the State Bar Councils would elect their representatives to the BCI within two weeks of notification of their composition.
The bench clarified that retired or former woman judges could also be nominated by the Chief Justice of the respective High Court against the two slots earmarked for co-opted women members.
The State Bar Councils were directed to file compliance reports, after which the court would consider the issue of BCI’s reconstitution and questions concerning the continuation and tenure of its present office-bearers.
Justice Bagchi made it clear that the interim arrangement should not be construed as the court’s approval of the present set-up. The existing office-bearers could continue with routine administration until fresh elections, he said, but decisions involving significant policy issues required participation of independent ex-officio members such as the Attorney General.
The bench said the Attorney General and Solicitor General should be given notice of BCI meetings and associated with policy decisions during the interim period.
The court also questioned the legal basis of an April 2025 notification extending BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra’s tenure for five years, against the backdrop of submissions that Rule 12(2) provides a two-year tenure for the chairman and vice-chairman.
The bench, however, emphasised that its scrutiny was institutional rather than directed against any individual. CJI Kant said the immediate priority was to complete the State Bar Council election and co-option process, followed by the election of their representatives to the BCI.
The court also heard submissions concerning the creation and functioning of the BCI Trust “PEARL-FIRST”, including allegations about the transfer of assets and appointment of individuals as lifelong trustees irrespective of whether they continued to hold positions in the BCI. The bench questioned whether members of an elected body could confer permanent trusteeship upon themselves and said these issues would be examined subsequently.
Senior advocates C.U. Singh, Sanjay Hegde, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Madhavi Divan and Shobha Gupta appeared for the petitioners. Senior advocates Maninder Singh and Guru Krishna Kumar represented the BCI.
Pramod kumar is a Senior Journalist, Covering Supreem Court of India
