The Supreme Court today reminded Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra that he is only a pro tem Chairman and not a democratically elected office-bearer, and hence, he can only manage the day-to-day affairs of the BCI.

The Court said that before taking any major policy decisions, the BCI must involve the Attorney General for India and the Solicitor General of India, who are permanent ex-officio BCI members.

The observations came while hearing pleas challenging the prolonged continuation of Mishra as BCI Chairman as beyond the tenure prescribed under the BCI Rules.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana observed that while Mishra's continuation may be permitted for the day-to-day functioning of the BCI until a new Council is constituted, his position cannot be equated with that of a democratically elected Chairman.

Addressing Senior Advocate Guru Krishnakumar, representing the BCI, Justice Bagchi said, "You should also bear in mind that you are like a pro tem Chairman till a fresh election of the Bar Council of India, pursuant to the elections already conducted in the State Bar Councils, takes place. So, it is not a situation where he is democratically elected and continues to be so. His term is co-terminus with the elections which are imminent. Because the new Bar Councils are about to be constituted. So in this situation, what we generally do is, day-to-day functioning is left to the pro tem Chairman. But whenever a policy decision is taken, a permanent ex-officio member, like the Attorney General, must be involved."

The bench further suggested that the Attorney General for India and Solicitor General, who are members of the BCI under the statutory scheme, could participate in Council meetings when matters having significant policy implications are considered.

"They need not be involved in the Council's day-to-day functioning. However, whenever a decision having significant policy implications is considered, the Attorney General and Solicitor General can be invited to participate," Justice Bagchi observed.

Justice Bagchi added that until an elected BCI is constituted, Mishra's continuation under the proviso to Section 4(3) of the Advocates Act may be permitted for day-to-day functioning, but "every policy decision must involve the Attorney General."

Justice Bagchi, clarifying that the Court was not encouraging any "shadow-boxing", however said that there was a need to ensure institutional integrity. "So till an elected Bar Council of India comes into being, a pro tem continuance of proviso to Section 4(3), would be good for day-to-day functioning, but when it comes to policy decisions, it must be in the presence of the Attorney General," Justice Bagchi said.

Senior Advocates Maninder Singh and Guru Krishna Kumar agreed to the Court's suggestion to involve the AG and the SG in the BCI decisions.

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.

The bench issued directions to expedite the notification of the new State Bar Councils, so that they can elect their representatives to the Bar Council of India in a time-bound manner. The Court's directions are aimed at bringing a newly election BCI at the earliest. The Court also recorded the undertaking given on behalf of the BCI that the Attorney General for India and the Solicitor General will be involved in any policy decision.

Senior Advocates Madhavi Divan, Chander Uday Singh, Shobha Gupta, Sanjay Hegde and Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued from the petitioners' side.

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