A demand for the resignation of Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra was formally raised during a General Council meeting held at the BCI office today.
BCI member Manoj Kumar Narendran, from Kerala, called for Mishra's resignation during the meeting, making the demand directly before the General Council. His demand received support from another BCI member from Uttar Pradesh, Advocate Srinath Tripathi, who backed the call for the Chairman to step down.
Senior Advocate Sadasiva Reddy, BCI Co-Chairman, thought not present at the General Council meeting, has separately submitted a letter seeking Mishra's resignation.
This comes after BCI Co-Chairman and Senior Advocate Y.R. Sadasiva Reddy also addressed a letter to Mishra, demanding his resignation.
In a subsequent etter addressed to Mishra, Manoj Kumar Narendra has expressed deep anguish at the present functioning of the statutory body, particularly under the leadership of the chairman, who has remained BCI's chairman for more than 14 years. Narendran has said that such prolonged leadership by a single individual is "unhealthy" for a statutory institution which is founded on democratic representation, collective responsibility and institutional decision-making.
In his letter,Narendran said: "In these circumstances, I am constrained to state that the manner in which the Bar Council of India has been functioning under your leadership has resulted in a serious erosion of confidence among members of the legal profession. Your continuance as Chairman has, in my considered view, become incompatible with the urgent need to restore confidence in the democratic, independent, transparent and statutory functioning of the Bar Council of India."
Narendran has raised several issues with the current functioning of the BCI, and has particularly raised concerns over the legality of the amendment by which the Chairman's tenure was extended to five years.
"A statutory body founded on democratic principles cannot alter the tenure of its highest office in a manner which creates an impression that the Rules are being changed to facilitate the continuance of a particular individual. Any such amendment ought to have been preceded by proper notice, full deliberation and collective consideration by the General Council, with complete transparency regarding its legal basis and institutional necessity," he has said.
Sweeping statements in the name of BCI can't be made by one individual
Further, Narendran has remarked that many statements and communications apparently issued on behalf of BCI are without prior deliberation, approval or authorisation by the Members of the General Council. In this regard, he has said that BCI is meant to represent advocates from diverse backgrounds and therefore the institutional voice has to be expressed after due consideration from the competent body and in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
"The office of Chairman cannot be treated as a substitute for the collective decision-making authority of the General Council. Statements issued in the name of the Bar Council of India without adequate notice to, or approval from, its Members create uncertainty regarding whether such statements represent the considered position of the institution or merely the view of an individual office-bearer. This practice undermines transparency, accountability and confidence in the functioning of the Council."
The BCI member has also stated in his letter that Mishra has made several statements during the student protests, in which protesting students were characterised in sweeping terms, including allegations that they were “anti-social and anti-national forces” acting under the influence of “foreign adversaries”. He has said that allegations of such gravity ought not to be issued in the name of a statutory professional body without credible material and without prior deliberation and approval by the competent body.
"Branding protesting students as anti-national merely because they dissent from or oppose those in authority is wholly inconsistent with the constitutional values which the legal profession is duty-bound to protect," he said.
The NALSAR Episode
Narendran said that the NALSAR's controvery was the final straw in Mishra's continued illegal activities. Referring to Section 6 of the Advocates Act, which entrusts State Bar Councils with the function of admitting persons as advocates on their rolls, while Sections 24 and 24A prescribe the statutory qualifications and disqualifications for enrolment, he has said that the BCI chairman has no authority to create an "additional disqualification" which even the legislature has not prescribed.
The member has reminded the BCI chairman that India is a constitutional democracy and such oppositions must ordinarily be treated as an "expression of their opinion".
He remarked: "Every citizen has the right to express an opinion, including an opinion disagreeing with persons occupying the highest constitutional offices. Peaceful dissent or disagreement over the choice of a Chief Guest cannot be transformed into a ground for threatening a student's future entry into the legal profession. More disturbing was the attempt to prevent an entire graduating batch from enrolling because of the alleged actions of some students. This amounted, in effect, to collective punishment."
He has said that pre-enrolment conduct can become relevant only where it attracts a statutory disqualification or otherwise has a legally sustainable bearing upon eligibility. Mere expression of an opinion, participation in a peaceful protest or criticism of an institutional decision cannot, by itself, justify denial of enrolment.
In this regard, Narendran has said that subsequent unconditional withdrawal of the directions or apology can't absolve the responsibility for having issued a sweeping direction capable of jeopardising the professional future of an entire batch of law graduates.
"It necessarily raises the fundamental question as to how such an extraordinary direction came to be issued in the first place. Statutory powers cannot be exercised on the basis of personal displeasure or subjective perceptions of an individual office-bearer. The episode demonstrates the dangers inherent in excessive concentration and personalisation of institutional power."
Functioning of General Council
Narendran has also raised serious concerns regarding the manner in which meetings of the General Council of the Bar Council of India are being conducted. He has said that General Council meetings are not being conducted with the procedural discipline expected of a national statutory body. On several occasions, agendas are posted in WhatsApp groups only minutes before the commencement of meetings.
Further, he has said that minutes of previous meetings are not regularly circulated to members for their consideration and approval. This has left the members in the dark regarding the decisions recorded as having been taken at previous meetings and the manner in which such decisions are ultimately incorporated in the minutes. Kumar has remarked that approval of minutes is not an empty procedural formality. It is an essential safeguard ensuring that the official record accurately reflects the deliberations and decisions of the Council.
Further, he has claimed that there have been instances where amendments to Rules having substantial consequences are made without adequate prior notice, circulation of the proposed amendments or meaningful deliberation in the General Council.
Additionally, he has also raised the issue regarding the position of the ex officio Members of the Council. He has said that the Attorney General for India and the Solicitor General of India are ex officio Members of the Bar Council of India. It is understood that adequate advance notice and agenda of General Council meetings are not being regularly furnished to them. This issue has been pointed out on several occasions, yet no effective corrective steps appear to have been taken. Statutory membership cannot be reduced to a mere formality by failing to provide Members a genuine opportunity to participate in the deliberative process.
"These practices weaken collective decision-making and contribute to an unhealthy concentration of institutional authority in the office of the Chairman. The Bar Council of India must function through its Council and in accordance with its statute and Rules; it cannot be allowed to function substantially through decisions or statements of an individual office-bearer subsequently presented as decisions or positions of the institution."
Personalisation and Centralisation of Power
Serious concern has also been raised by him about the manner in which democratically constituted State Bar Councils have been dealt with during Mishra's tenure. He has said that attempts to control their functioning through nominated or ad hoc committees, or by placing persons who do not possess an electoral mandate, including persons defeated in State Bar Council elections, in positions of authority over elected representatives, strike at the very foundation of democratic self-governance of the Bar.
"A person who has been rejected by advocates through the electoral process cannot ordinarily be permitted to acquire, through nomination, the authority which the electorate declined to confer upon him. The Bar Council of India ought to strengthen democratically elected State Bar Councils rather than undermine their authority through ad hoc arrangements, nominations and excessive centralised control."
Appointments and Employment
Serious concerns have also been raised regarding appointments and employment in the BCI and its Trusts, including allegations that close relatives of persons associated with the administration have been appointed or employed in these institutions. There is also a widespread perception that a disproportionately large number of employees have been recruited from Bihar without any transparent or publicly known process of selection.
These concerns can and ought to be addressed through complete transparency. Details of appointments, qualifications prescribed, vacancies notified, the selection procedure followed, and the relationship, if any, of appointees with office-bearers or persons connected with the administration should be placed before the General Council. Appointments to institutions carrying the name and authority of the Bar Council of India must be based upon a fair, transparent and objective selection process and must remain free from any perception of favouritism or nepotism.
Serious Concerns Regarding BCI Trust “Pearl First”
A further matter of grave concern has now arisen regarding the constitution and functioning of the entity described as Bar Council of India Trust “Pearl First”.
Narendran has revealed that a communication purporting to have been issued by the Anti-Corruption Unit of the Central Bureau of Investigation in October 2024 was recently posted by a Member in the official WhatsApp group of the Bar Council of India. The communication states that a complaint had been registered against unknown officials of the BCI alleging, inter alia, misappropriation of funds and misuse of official position in connection with the creation of a new Trust, and seeks extensive information and records relating to the existing Bar Council of India Trust as well as the new Trust described as “Pearl First”.
The communication raises several extremely serious issues, including the circumstances in which the new Trust was constituted; the identity of its authors and Managing Trustees; the status of the old and new Trusts; the donations or fees allegedly received from institutions, colleges and universities; the utilisation of such amounts; the relationship, if any, between such collections and recognition by the Bar Council of India; and the ownership and control of the India International University of Legal Education and Research (IIULER), Goa.
Raising concern over this, he said: "You[BCI Chairman] have stated that the said communication is fake. If that is indeed the position, the matter still requires an immediate, transparent and authoritative clarification, particularly because a document purporting to emanate from a premier investigating agency and raising issues of such seriousness has circulated among Members of the Council. The authenticity or otherwise of that particular communication is one issue; the need for complete transparency regarding the constitution, ownership, administration, finances and activities of the new Trust is another, and cannot be avoided merely by describing the communication as fake."