Supreme Court Questions BCI-PEARL FIRST Trust : 'How Can BCI Office-Bearers Be Permanent Trustees Beyond Their Term?'

The Supreme Court today questioned the legality of provisions in the BCI-PEARL FIRST Trust Deed that allow the current office-bearers of the Bar Council of India, including its Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, to continue as permanent trustees of the PEARL FIRST Trust even after they cease to be the office-bearers of the Bar Council of India (BCI).

The Court asked how an elected statutory body could create a trust with permanent trustees.

The issue arose before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, which was hearing petitions challenging the prolonged continuation of BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra and raising concerns regarding the functioning and administration of the BCI-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] Trust.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioners, raised concerns regarding the BCI-PEARL FIRST Trust, which was constituted in 2020 in place of the earlier BCI Trust. He submitted that the Trust Deed permits trustees(who include the present BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra) to continue as permanent managing trustees even after their tenure in the BCI comes to an end. They will continue until they resign or are discharged by law.  Sankaranarayanan further informed the Court that the Trust subsequently established a law university in Goa and submitted that there was no clarity regarding the finances of the Trust and the university.

Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh submitted that the provisions permitting trustees to continue beyond their BCI tenure had also been specifically challenged before the Court. He pointed out that under the 1974 Trust Deed for the BCI Trust, trustees were required to be members of the BCI and would cease to be trustees once they ceased to be members of the Council. Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta submitted that the PEARL FIRST Trust has now got a tender for land in Amaravati for a law university, and in Goa, they have 56 acres of land for the law university. Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan called for strict scrutiny of the Trust's financial activities, highlighting that they got Rs 4.41 Crores in one financial year.

Justice Bagchi then observed : "We have to examine the relevant terms of the Trust, because the Trust is created out of the assets of the Bar Council. Bar Council as per Section 5 of the Act is a juristic body. So that juristic body creates a trust, which it is entitled to do, by virtue of the elected members who are constituting the Bar Council. So can those elected members thereby become permanent trustees when the composition of the corporate entity, which set up the trust, is an elected body?"

Justice Bagchi noted that the present office-bearers are continuing invoking the transitional provision under the proviso to Section 4(3) of the Advocates Act, as per which they will continue till the successors are elected. So, can they become permanent trustees during the transition period? "Whether by virtue of their continuum, in view of the proviso of Section 4(3) of the Advocates Act, can these members create a Trust where the members themselves perpetuate their rights of trustees beyond their capacity?"

Justice Bagchi said that the ex-officio members can be perpetual trustees by their office and not the members. "But when the body corporate itself is an elected one, and not a permanent one, can that elected body create a perpetual trust? That can be the issue," Justice Bagchi asked.

"If the Bar Council of India Chairman is ex-officio perpetual member...but an individual, by name, unless he continues to be a member of an elected member, how can he be a trustee?" Justice Bagchi posed.

Sankaranarayanan submitted that the situation warrants a "high-level investigation" into the affairs of the last six years. Gupta proposed that an oversight committee consisting of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General be constituted to scrutinise the affairs.

Sankaranarayanan recalled that stalwarts like MC Setalvad and Gopal Subramanium used to head the Bar Council of India at one point. 

The bench, however, appeared cautious about ordering extensive judicial intervention at a stage when the newly elected State Bar Councils are in the process of being constituted and a new BCI is expected to follow.

"Let us go step by step. Instead of going by the will and wish of the elected body, if we constitute a committee, that may also be subject matter of criticism. Let us first of all, now that State Bar Council elections are done, how the further election to the Bar Council of India and its new composition take place," CJI Surya Kant said.

Once the newly elected State Bar Councils are constituted, their members would elect the members of the BCI, the Court noted. The CJI proposed that a timeline can be laid down to expedite the process.

The petitions challenging Mishra's tenure were filed in the wake of the NALSAR controversy involving the BCI Chairman, where he had issued directions against the enrolment of NALSAR graduates after they objected to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant being invited as a guest at the university's convocation. Mishra subsequently apologised following widespread criticism.

Detailed story on the directions can be read here- Supreme Court Issues Directions For Faster Election Of New Bar Council Of India Members; Asks BCI To Involve AG & SG For Policy Decisions

Also from the hearing- 'You Don't Continue To Be Democratically Elected, Only A Pro Tem Chairman' : Supreme Court To Manan Kumar Mishra

Cases: M. VARADHAN Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. W.P.(C) No. 1049/2026; YOGAMAYA M.G. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. W.P.(C) No. 1092/2026