Disapproving of the leadership of the Bar Council of India (BCI), its Co-Chairman and Senior Advocate Y.R. Sadasiva Reddy has formally demanded the immediate resignation of Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra.

In a six-page letter addressed to Mr. Mishra himself on August 22, Reddy has made grave allegations such as the diversion of Rs. 150 crores of Council funds to a private trust controlled by the Chairman, and the appointment of family members to key positions without any transparent process. The co-chairman has also pointed out the very recent controversy about the issuance of a communication against the graduating batch of NALSAR University of Law.

“…This Council has drifted very far from that standard…. I call upon you, in the plainest terms, to tender your resignation from the office of Chairman... forthwith”, Reddy writes in the letter.

In light of the allegations, Mr. Reddy has called for Mr. Mishra to tender his resignation within 15 days.

Reddy, who has served alongside Mr. Mishra on the Council for a decade, has outlined several grounds for the resignation demand.

Reddy alleges that the Bar Council of India Trust was deliberately allowed to fall into disuse. In its place, a new trust, 'BCI Trust PEARL – First' was registered on September 17, 2020, with trustees handpicked by Chairman Mishra.

Subsequently, a resolution was moved to transfer an amount to the tune of Rs. 150 crores of the BCI's funds, comprising contributions from advocates across the country to this trust, the letter adds.

“…I know of no provision of the Advocates Act, 1961 which permits the corpus of a statutory regulator to be transferred to a private trust registered by its own Chairman”, Mr. Reddy states, adding that no member of the Council has seen a copy of the Trust Deed.

The letter further alleges that law colleges approaching the BCI for approval or renewal are being pressured to make 'contributions' to the said trust, with demands ranging from Rs. 25 lakhs to Rs. 1 crore.

“…If this is correct- and I have received nothing from your office to indicate that it is not-... it is a matter of the utmost gravity. The power of approval and renewal under the Advocates Act is a regulatory power. It is not a licence to raise funds”, the letter reads.

Reddy has pointed out that a huge proportion of the staff employed by the Council are persons connected to Mr. Mishra personally, including members of his family. Reddy further claims that no record of advertisements, selection committees, or merit lists justifying these appointments has been placed before the Council.

The letter specifically condemns the direction issued on August 13, 2026, from the Chairman's office, directing State Bar Councils not to enrol the graduating batch of NALSAR University, Hyderabad. The directive was issued, Mr. Reddy claims, without any material being placed before the Council or any resolution authorizing it.

“…That single act... has done more damage to the standing of this Council than anything else in its history”, Mr. Reddy asserts. The direction, which was withdrawn within hours following condemnation from the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court itself, was described by the letter as a 'reprisal for having held an opinion'.

Mr. Reddy also accused the Chairman of sustaining factions within State Bar Councils and noted that Mr. Mishra has occupied the post continuously since 2012, a tenure of 14 years, despite the term of the office being only two years.

“…An elected office that has one occupant for fourteen years has ceased, in any real sense, to be an elected office”, he remarked.

He has also demanded that a Special Meeting of the BCI be convened to consider these matters, and has requested a special audit of the accounts of both the Bar Council of India and 'BCI Trust PEARL – First' by an independent firm empanelled with the CAG. He has further demanded that all "contributions" from law colleges be stopped

Mr. Reddy noted before parting that young advocates, Student Bar Councils of National Law Universities, and even members of Mr. Mishra's own bar association in his home state have publicly called for his departure.

“…When the regulator of a profession is publicly repudiated by the profession it regulates... the question of its chairman's continuance is no longer a matter of personal preference. It is a question of institutional survival”, the letter concludes.