|
A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the continuation of senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra as Chairman of the Bar Council of India (BCI), alleging that his tenure has continued for more than a decade in violation of the governing rules.
The petition, filed by advocate Yogamaya MG, questioned the legality of Mishra's uninterrupted tenure and contended that Rule 12(2) of the BCI Rules prescribes a two-year limit for the Chairman's term. The petitioner has also challenged an April 2025 gazette notification that purportedly extends Mishra's tenure until 2030, arguing that such an extension is inconsistent with the statutory framework governing the BCI. The plea filed through advocate Deepak Prakash said 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. It said that an administrative notification cannot extend the tenure beyond what the Rules permit. The plea urged the apex court to quash the April 21, 2025 Gazette notification and direct the BCI to withdraw or rescind it. The petitioner further submitted that concerns regarding institutional balance are reflected in the absence of any cumulative limitation on repeated occupation of the office of Chairman. "Although Rule 12(2) prescribes a two-year tenure, no meaningful restriction exists upon repeated re-election. Consequently, the office has remained with the same individual for nearly twelve years. Such prolonged concentration is prima facie inconsistent with the representative scheme embodied in Section 4(1)(c), under which every State Bar Council contributes to the composition of the Bar Council of India. A national institution representing the entire legal profession should not permit its highest office to remain concentrated indefinitely in one individual or a narrow regional grouping," the petition stated. Among other reliefs, the plea sought Mishra's removal from the post and the conduct of fresh elections within a time-bound period under independent supervision. It also sought the introduction of a cumulative cap on the number of years a person can serve as BCI Chairman, coupled with a rotation mechanism for the position. It also sought 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 petitioner urged the top court to constitute an independent committee headed by a former Supreme Court judge or former Chief Justice of a High Court. It said the committee would be assisted by an auditor nominated by the CAG and by financial and technical experts. The petition has additionally raised concerns regarding the functioning and finances of the BCI Trust, "PEARL-FIRST", as well as the financial affairs of the All India Bar Examination and sought an independent inquiry into these aspects. The plea further sought conduct of a time-bound audit of statutory funds, All India Bar Examination receipts, institutional receipts, Trust finances, vendor contracts and relatedparty transactions. As an interim measure, the petitioner has proposed the constitution of an independent administrative committee to oversee the functioning of the BCI in the event the apex court directs Mishra's removal. The petition traces Manan Kumar Mishra's tenure as BCI Chairman back to 2012. It stated that although he briefly demitted office in 2014, he returned as Chairman in November that year and has continued in the position ever since. Mishra was once again elected unopposed in March 2025, which the petitioner claimed marks his seventh consecutive term at the helm of the BCI. The petition also raised questions about the political activities of Mishra while he has remained Chairman of the BCI. It referred to his becoming a Rajya Sabha member after being nominated by the BJP in 2024. The petitioner does not contend that Mishra's political affiliation, by itself, makes him ineligible to hold the post. Rather, the plea argued that his simultaneous association with political office and leadership of the country's statutory body regulating the legal profession gives rise to concerns about the BCI's institutional neutrality and the perception of its independence. "Petitioner does not seek the removal of any individual merely because of political affiliation or personal disagreement with any office bearer. Nor does the petitioner invite this Court to substitute its own opinion for that of the statutory authority. The challenge is directed against structural illegality, alleged concentration of institutional control, prolonged concentration ofstatutory power, violation of mandatory statutory provisions governing tenure and elections, arbitrary exercise of regulatory authority, absence of transparency and accountability, and failure to preserve the representative democratic character contemplated under the Advocates Act, 1961," added the PIL. (ANI)
|
