Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Aug 22: The hasty decision by the Bar Council of India (BCI) chairman Manan Kumar Mishra to bar the graduating students of the Hyderabad-based NALSAR University of Law from being enrolled as members of any bar council in India followed by its quick withdrawal has brought out the internal feud in the organisation and the demand for his resignation grew louder on Saturday.
The pressure on Mr Mishra to quit the post was brought by a senior BCI member and its Co-Chairperson Y.R. Sadasiva Reddy who also called for an independent probe into a series of allegations concerning the functioning of the statutory body.
The development came hours before a press conference proposed by the BCI was scheduled to be held at its office in New Delhi. The council, however, postponed the August 22 press conference, citing the possibility of a large gathering of advocates and concerns over the availability of space and arrangements for the media. The revised date has been indicated as August 24.
In a six-page letter, Reddy has sought an independent investigation into a series of allegations involving recruitment, management of funds, appointments, law college approvals and decisions concerning law students.
Reddy has stressed that the BCI was not a private organisation of any individual but a statutory body created by an Act of Parliament, with responsibilities involving the interests of millions of lawyers and important powers relating to entry into the legal profession.
According to his letter, the allegations concern the manner in which the institution has been functioning under Mishra’s leadership and raise questions about transparency, accountability and institutional decision-making.
Mr Mishra, who has helmed the post of Chairman of the Council for over a decade, is also facing a fresh petition filed on Friday before the Supreme Court questioning his prolonged tenure.
The current controversy over the BCI’s functioning and its chairman’s resignation stems from a circular issued by Mr Mishra on August 13 directing all the bar councils in various states not to enrol as advocates the 2026 graduating batch of the NALSAR University of Law because they had questioned the university authorities in inviting the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as the chief guest at the annual convocation this year.
The directive, however, was quickly rescinded and Mr Mishra also apologised to the students after an outcry among the legal fraternity across the nation with the CJI himself questioning the BCI’s authority in coming between him and the NALSAR students and the Bombay Bar Association criticised the handling of the episode while seeking Mr Mishra’s resignation.
More than 200 lawyers had also gathered on August 20 outside the BCI office under the banner of the All India Young Advocates Association, raising demands including reforms in the BCI’s election mechanism and greater accountability in its functioning.
It culminated on Saturday with Mr Reddy calling upon Mr Mishra to resign and sought an independent examination of a range of issues relating to the functioning and financial administration of the council. The letter raises questions over appointments within the BCI establishment, with Mr Reddy alleging that a “striking proportion of the staff are persons connected to you (Mr Mishra) personally, several of them being members of, or related to, your own family.”
Mr Reddy also highlighted how the BCI Trust was rendered defunct and Council’s funds being diverted to a newly created BCI Trust PEARL-FIRST which was registered in September 2020 with trustees chosen by Mishra. “Thereafter, a resolution was moved in this Council for the transfer of a sum of the order of Rs 150 crore of the funds of the Bar Council of India to that newly created trust,” Reddy alleged in the letter, adding that objections from him and other members were overridden.
Mr Reddy further alleged of contributions being demanded from law colleges seeking approval or renewal of approval. He said, “persistent and credible complaints have reached me, from more than one State, that managements of new law colleges approaching the Bar Council of India for approval, and managements of existing colleges approaching it for renewal, are being required to make “contributions” to the said Trust, in amounts ranging from ₹25 lakhs to ₹50 lakhs to ₹1 crore.”
Mr Reddy also questioned Mr Mishra’s prolonged occupancy of the chairmanship and argued for greater rotation and representation in the leadership of the apex regulatory body for the legal profession. “You (Mr Mishra) have held that office continuously since 2012, and were returned a further consecutive term in 2025. This is without precedent. When elections to the office fall due, the arrangements are so managed that the outcome is a foregone conclusion. An elected office that has one occupant for fourteen years has ceased, in any real sense, to be an elected office.”
Mr Reddy said he wrote the letter with “considerable anguish,” noting that “silence on my part would amount to a dereliction of the trust reposed in me by the advocates of this country.” He alleged Mr Mishra has been treating the statutory body like a personal estate rather than a public trust.
He alleged blatant nepotism in hiring practices across the council and its educational institutions. “A striking proportion of the staff are persons connected to you personally, several of them being members of, or related to, your own family,” Reddy said in the letter, adding that not a single advertisement or merit list was placed before the council to justify these staff appointments.
According to Reddy, he was not provided with details such as recruitment advertisements, information about selection committees or merit lists for these appointments. He has further alleged that several BCI employees have personal links with the chairman and that some are members of his family or relatives.
Mr Reddy has further alleged that factionalism in various State Bar Councils increased during Mishra’s tenure. He claimed that on several occasions, BCI orders were issued in favour of one faction. In some instances, according to his allegations, the affected side was not informed in advance and the matter was not placed before the full BCI Council.
Reddy has raised these issues as part of his broader argument that decision-making within the BCI needs greater transparency and institutional oversight.
The letter comes amid the filing of a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the continuation of Mishra as BCI chairman, alleging that his tenure has continued for more than a decade in violation of the governing rules. The petition filed by lawyer Yogamaya MG questioned the legality of Mishra’s uninterrupted tenure and cited BCI rules that prescribe a two-year limit for the chairman’s term.