Supreme Court Reins In BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra’s Powers

The Supreme Court has said BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, continuing as pro tem chairman, should restrict himself to day-to-day affairs and involve the Attorney General and Solicitor General in policy decisions.

What Happened

A Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana told Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra that his present position as pro tem chairman does not carry the same authority as that of a democratically elected chairman.

The Court indicated that the pro tem chairman may continue to manage the day-to-day functioning of the BCI, but should not independently take major policy decisions. For such decisions, the BCI must involve the Attorney General for India and the Solicitor General of India, who are permanent ex-officio members of the BCI.

Senior Advocates Guru Krishnakumar and Maninder Singh, appearing for the BCI, agreed to the Court’s suggestion. The undertaking means that the Attorney General and Solicitor General will be involved in policy decisions while the process of constituting a new elected BCI continues.

Background / Context

The observations came while the Supreme Court was hearing pleas challenging Mishra’s prolonged continuation as BCI Chairman beyond the tenure prescribed under the BCI Rules.

The issue arose against the backdrop of the NALSAR controversy. Mishra had issued directions against the enrolment of graduates of the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR) after they objected to the invitation extended to CJI Surya Kant as a guest at the university’s convocation. Mishra subsequently apologised following criticism over the directions.

The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocates Madhavi Divan, Chander Uday Singh, Shobha Gupta, Sanjay Hegde and Gopal Sankaranarayanan.

The dispute over Mishra’s continuation also brought into focus the distinction between a chairman elected through the BCI’s regular institutional process and a pro tem chairman continuing in office while the process for constituting a new elected body is underway.

Reactions / Implications

Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that Mishra’s continuation is co-terminus with the imminent BCI elections, following elections that have already been conducted in the State Bar Councils. The Court distinguished this situation from that of a democratically elected chairman continuing in office.

Justice Bagchi indicated that the day-to-day functioning of the BCI could remain with the pro tem chairman. However, where a policy decision is involved, a permanent ex-officio member such as the Attorney General should also be involved.

The Court clarified that it was not encouraging “shadow-boxing” between the institutional actors. Instead, the emphasis was on maintaining institutional integrity until an elected BCI is constituted.

The bench also issued directions to expedite the notification of the new State Bar Councils so that their representatives can be elected to the BCI in a time-bound manner. The Court recorded the undertaking on behalf of the BCI that the Attorney General and Solicitor General would be involved in any policy decision during this period.

ALSO READ: Bombay High Court Directs Immediate Medical Care for Tribal Students on Hunger Strike