Three members of the Bar Council of India have opposed BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra's proposed resolution to abolish the provision for Permanent Managing Trustees in the BCI Trust for Promotion of Education (Legal and Professional) and Reforms in Law and Improvement of Research and Social Training (PEARL-FIRST), and have sought comprehensive disclosure and examination of the Trust's deed, finances and functioning.

In a letter dated September 19, 2026 addressed to the BCI Chairman and members, Senior Advocate YR Sadasiva Reddy, Advocate Srinath Tripathi and Advocate N Manoj Kumar referred to a message posted by Mishra in the official BCI WhatsApp group proposing that "there shall be no Permanent Managing Trustees" and that only sitting BCI members would serve as Managing Trustees, with their tenure ending when they cease to be members of the Council.

The proposed resolution comes days after the Supreme Court, on September 2, questioned the legality of provisions in the PEARL-FIRST Trust Deed allowing BCI office-bearers to continue as permanent trustees even after their tenure in the elected statutory body ends. The Court asked how an elected body could create a Trust with permanent trustees and specifically questioned whether elected BCI members could "perpetuate their rights of trustees beyond their capacity."

The BCI members have now questioned the basis for the proposed change, particularly after Mishra's message stated: "You all are aware of the reason why this provision for Permanent Managing Trustees was introduced in the Trust Deed."

"We are not aware of the reason," the members said, pointing out that the Trust Deed had never been supplied to them despite repeated requests. They said the proposal to remove permanent trusteeship itself demonstrates that concerns previously raised regarding PEARL-FIRST require examination. According to them, deleting the provision now would not answer questions about how it came to be included in the registered deed in the first place.

Questions over 2020 Trust Deed for PEARL FIRST

The letter calls for an immediate and comprehensive examination of the registered Trust Deed dated September 17, 2020.

The members have questioned whether the BCI was legally competent to confer the powers contained in the deed, whether members actually approved the complete instrument that was registered, whether statutory functions or revenues could lawfully be transferred to the Trust, and whether rights created by the registered deed can subsequently be rewritten through ordinary resolutions.

They have drawn a comparison with the original BCI Trust constituted in 1974. Under that arrangement, trustees were required to remain members of the BCI and ceased to be trustees when they ceased to be Council members. The Trust was also subject to BCI's control and supervision.

The 2020 deed, according to the letter, departed from this structure by allowing original Managing Trustees to continue in office even after their BCI membership ended.

The members have sought production of the notice convening the 2020 General Council meeting, the agenda and explanatory note relating to Item No. 474/2020, the complete draft Trust Deed circulated before the meeting, proof of circulation to members, attendance and voting records, any dissent or reservation, the resolution authorising execution and the final version registered with the authorities.

Financial records, AIBE funds sought

The letter also raises questions about the financial relationship between BCI and PEARL-FIRST.

It seeks an independent reconciliation of receipts and expenditure relating to every All India Bar Examination conducted since PEARL-FIRST commenced operations. The members have sought details including candidate-wise fee collections, recipient bank accounts, BCI and Trust ledger entries, transfers between the two entities, vendor payments, examination costs, investment of surplus and its eventual utilisation.

They have specifically sought clarification on whether any AIBE receipts were directly credited to PEARL-FIRST and, if so, the legal authority under which such transfers were made.

The letter also refers to a 2022 communication by BCI to the Central Information Commission concerning access to records of a "BCI Trust", and calls for the complete RTI proceedings, the CIC order, BCI's letter and the affidavit filed by its CPIO to be examined to establish the relationship between BCI and the Trust.

Questions over appointments and legal education centres

The BCI members have also sought scrutiny of appointments at the Indian Institute of Legal Education and Research (IIULER), referring to allegations involving persons described as relatives of individuals associated with the Trust.

They have called for production of appointment-related records, including advertisements, applications, comparative assessments, selection committee proceedings, relationship disclosures, recusals, appointment orders and remuneration records.

The letter further refers to an allegation that approval was granted to Legal Education Centres that made donations to PEARL-FIRST. It seeks details of approvals granted to new centres, courses and additional batches during the past three years so that the allegations can be examined.

The members have proposed that all records relating to PEARL-FIRST, including financial ledgers, bank statements, Trust resolutions, appointment records, IIULER records and regulatory files, be preserved pending an independent examination.

They have also proposed that the BCI General Council undertake an independent legal and forensic examination of the Trust and that no amendment of the deed or major financial, property or related-party transaction be undertaken pending completion of the examination.

The letter concludes that the BCI should reconstruct the legal and financial history of PEARL-FIRST from 2019 onwards and determine which actions were within its statutory authority, which may have exceeded that authority, and what matters require corrective action or independent investigation.