BCI Decisions Taken Without Collective Deliberation, AG & SG Not Given Meeting Notices: Member Tells Supreme Court

Kumar, who represents the Bar Council of Kerala in the BCI, made the submissions in a reply affidavit filed in the pending proceedings concerning the functioning and reconstitution of the Bar Council of India. He stated that he substantially supported the concerns raised in the writ petition insofar as they related to transparency, accountability, democratic functioning, statutory powers and financial affairs of the BCI.

AG, SG allegedly not given notices of BCI meetings

The affidavit states that the Advocates Act provides for the Attorney General and Solicitor General to be ex-officio members of the BCI. However, according to Kumar, notices and agendas of BCI meetings were not circulated to them, thereby preventing their meaningful participation in the Council's deliberations.

Kumar stated that he had raised the issue with the BCI Chairman and was assured that notices and agendas would be circulated to the two law officers for future meetings. However, he alleged that the assurance was not complied with and that the practice continued.
The Supreme Court had, on September 2, directed that Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta be actively associated with every policy decision taken by the BCI. The direction was issued while the Court considered pleas challenging the continuation of Manan Kumar Mishra as BCI Chairman and indicated that it would consider reconstitution of the BCI after completion of the State Bar Council election process.

BCI member alleges unilateral decision-making

Kumar further alleged that the statutory authority under the Advocates Act was vested in the BCI collectively and could not be converted into the individual authority of any office-bearer.

He claimed that agendas for meetings had, on several occasions, been circulated or posted in messaging groups shortly before meetings, leaving members insufficient time to study important matters and participate effectively.

The affidavit also alleged that minutes of BCI meetings had not been circulated among members for confirmation and approval. Kumar said proper maintenance and circulation of minutes was necessary to ensure accurate recording of decisions, accountability and institutional transparency.

NALSAR action cited as instance of alleged unilateral exercise

The BCI member referred to the August 13, 2026 communication directing State Bar Councils not to enrol the graduating 2026 batch of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, and seeking identification of students who had participated in a campaign concerning the invitation extended to the Chief Justice of India for their convocation.

According to the affidavit, the action had not been placed before the BCI General Council for deliberation and no resolution authorising it had been disclosed. Kumar stated that he had objected to the action in writing and that the direction was subsequently withdrawn and the inquiry dropped following intervention by the Supreme Court.

Plea for ad hoc committee headed by AG or SG

Kumar has further submitted that, pending reconstitution of the BCI and election of its new office-bearers, the day-to-day administration of the Council could be entrusted to an ad hoc committee headed by either the Attorney General or Solicitor General.

The proposed arrangement, according to the affidavit, would insulate the ongoing electoral process from allegations of interference, preserve confidence in the fairness of the process and ensure continuity of the BCI's statutory functions.

The affidavit also alleged that the incumbent BCI Chairman was interfering in the process of constitution and election of State Bar Councils and attempting to influence members in relation to the election of their representatives to the BCI. These are allegations contained in the affidavit and have not been adjudicated by the Court.

Allegations concerning PEARL-FIRST trust and BCI finances

Kumar has also sought independent scrutiny of the constitution and functioning of the BCI Trust PEARL-FIRST, including its relationship with the BCI, its financial transactions and the utilisation of funds.

The affidavit raises questions concerning AIBE receipts and their alleged transfer or sharing with PEARL-FIRST, and seeks examination of the relevant Trust Deeds, BCI resolutions, banking records, ledgers and authorisations.

It further seeks production of records relating to the Trust, including its accounts and financial statements, bank statements, AIBE receipts and expenditure records, BCI appointment records and documents concerning inspection and approval of legal education centres.

The affidavit states that independent examination is necessary to determine the facts concerning the issues raised and calls for a comprehensive audit of the relevant accounts and transactions.

Background

The Supreme Court is seized of pleas concerning the functioning and reconstitution of the BCI, including a challenge to the continuation of Manan Kumar Mishra as Chairman.

On September 2, the Court directed the newly constituted State Bar Councils to elect their representatives to the BCI and said it would consider reconstitution of the BCI after receiving compliance reports. It also directed that the Attorney General and Solicitor General be actively associated with every policy decision taken by the BCI.

Case Title: Ms. Yogamaya MG v. Union of India & Ors.