At a time when BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra is facing increased public scrutiny following the NALSAR fiasco, a writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court questioning his continuation as the head of the Bar Council of India.

The writ petition, filed by Advocate Yogamaya MG., challenges Mishra's tenure, and his prolonged continuance in the post.

The petition points out that Mishra first became BCI Chairman in 2012. After a brief break in 2014, he returned to the post in November 2014 and has remained Chairman since then. He was again elected unopposed in March 2025. The petitioner describes this as his seventh consecutive term.

The main challenge is to the five-year tenure notified by the BCI in April 2025. The Gazette notification records Mishra's tenure from April 17, 2025 to April 16, 2030.

The petitioner argues that Rule 12(2) of the BCI Rules provides for a two-year tenure for the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, or until cessation of membership, whichever is earlier. The plea says an administrative notification cannot extend the tenure beyond what the Rules permit.

The petitioner also challenges the argument that the continuation of BCI members until their successors are elected can allow the Chairman to continue indefinitely. It argues that the proviso to Section 4(3) of the Advocates Act is only a transitional provision. It does not extend the separate tenure of the Chairman.

Fresh election sought

The plea asks the Supreme Court to quash the April 21, 2025 Gazette notification and direct the BCI to withdraw or rescind it.

It also seeks an order that Mishra and the Vice-Chairman cease to hold office and that fresh elections be conducted within a time-bound period under independent supervision.

The petitioner has also sought rules putting a limit on the number of terms a person can serve as BCI Chairman or Vice-Chairman. It wants a cooling-off period and a transparent rotational system so that representatives from different States and regions get an opportunity to head the BCI.

The plea further seeks safeguards to ensure that term limits cannot be bypassed through acting, ad hoc, officiating or interim appointments.

Political neutrality questioned

The petition also raises questions about the political activities of Mishra while he has remained Chairman of the BCI.

It refers to his becoming a Rajya Sabha member after being nominated by the BJP in 2024. The petitioner does not claim that political affiliation by itself disqualifies him. Instead, it argues that simultaneously holding political office and heading the country's statutory regulator for lawyers raises questions about institutional neutrality and perceived independence.

The plea also refers to public communications issued from the BCI platform on political and public issues. One such communication, dated July 23, 2026, concerned student protests, in which he denounced the movements as foreign-sponsored and led by anti-nationals. The petitioner questions whether such statements were authorised by the BCI's General Council and whether they fall within the statutory functions of the Council.

Independent committee to examine BCI Trust

A major part of the petition concerns the BCI Trust PEARL-FIRST [Bar Council of India Trust for Promotion of Education (Legal and Professional) and Reforms in Law and For Improvement of Research and Social Training]

The petitioner urges the Supreme Court to constitute an independent committee headed by a former Supreme Court judge or former Chief Justice of a High Court. The committee would be assisted by an auditor nominated by the CAG and by financial and technical experts.

The committee is sought to examine the legality and functioning of PEARL-FIRST, including Article 3(iii) of its September 18, 2020 Trust Deed.

The petition says the provision makes 11 Managing Trustees permanent, irrespective of whether they continue as members of the BCI. It argues that this raises questions about democratic accountability and institutional control.

The committee would also examine the relationship between the BCI, the 1974 Trust, PEARL-FIRST and IIULER, Goa.

Audit of funds and Trust accounts

The plea specifically seeks a time-bound audit of BCI statutory funds; All India Bar Examination receipts; institutional receipts; Trust finances; vendor contracts; and related-party transactions.

The petitioner says the AIBE involves compulsory fees paid by thousands of law graduates and that questions remain about the bank accounts receiving the fees, who controls them, expenditure approvals and audited financial statements.

The petition also seeks an examination of the financial and administrative relationship between the BCI and PEARL-FIRST.

IIULER and appointments under scrutiny

The petitioner also raises questions over the law college run by the BCI in Goa - India International University of Legal Education and Research (IIULER)

She seeks that the independent committee must examine appointments, recruitment, promotions and administrative actions from April 2012 onwards, wherever there is prima facie material requiring examination.

The petition specifically refers to allegations concerning appointments in IIULER, Goa, the Trust and related institutions. It seeks records such as advertisements, applications, selection committee proceedings, assessment sheets, appointment orders, service records, relationship disclosures and financial approvals.

The petitioner has stressed that these allegations should not be treated as established findings. It seeks an independent examination of the records.

The plea also asks the Supreme Court to order the immediate preservation and production of original records of the BCI, the 1974 Trust, PEARL-FIRST and IIULER, Goa.

These include Trust deeds, resolutions, agendas, notices, attendance registers, minutes, electronic records and metadata, accounts, bank statements, contracts, tender documents, recruitment records and communications.

It also seeks an order preventing the destruction, alteration or removal of these records while the case is pending.

Greater transparency in BCI functioning

The petition finally seeks directions for more transparent functioning of the BCI.

It asks that every member receive proper notice and the agenda before meetings. It seeks recorded resolutions and publication of confirmed minutes within a fixed period.

It also seeks annual independently audited accounts and publication of material contracts of the BCI and institutions or trusts controlled, promoted or substantially financed by it.

The petitioner wants the BCI to disclose the resolutions and recorded reasons behind decisions that materially affect advocates, students and educational institutions.

Last week, another petition was filed seeking a cap on the term of BCI Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.

The petition is filed through Advocate Deepak Prakash.