Back
Bar Council of India Co-Chairman Seeks Chairman's Resignation Over Rs 150 Crore Diversion
In an unprecedented internal revolt within the apex regulatory body for the legal profession, Co-Chairman and Senior Advocate has formally demanded the resignation of Chairman , citing a litany of grave allegations including the diversion of ₹150 crore in council funds, widespread , and a controversial action against law students that triggered nationwide condemnation. In a six-page letter dated , addressed directly to Mishra, Reddy set a 15-day deadline for his resignation, asserting that “the Bar of this country deserves better than what it is presently receiving from its own Council.” The demand marks a dramatic escalation in the leadership crisis gripping the BCI and raises fundamental questions about the governance, financial integrity, and accountability of the that oversees over 2.5 million advocates across India.
The Resignation Demand: A Co-Chairman’s Unprecedented Move
Reddy, who has served alongside Mishra on the Council for a decade, did not mince words in his letter. He declared that the Bar Council of India “is not the personal estate of any individual” and accused the Chairman of turning a blind eye to what he described as a systemic drift from the standards expected of the institution. “I call upon you, in the plainest terms, to tender your resignation from the office of Chairman… forthwith,” Reddy wrote, making it clear that his demand was not born of personal animosity but of a perceived failure of leadership. The letter set a specific timeline: resignation within 15 days. Reddy also requested a Special Meeting of the BCI to place the allegations before the full Council and called for an of the accounts.
Allegations of : ₹150 Crore Transferred to a Private Trust
The most explosive allegation in Reddy’s letter concerns the transfer of approximately ₹150 crore from the BCI’s to a newly created private trust, “.” According to Reddy, the older was deliberately allowed to fall into disuse, and in , Mishra handpicked trustees for the new trust. Subsequently, a resolution was moved to transfer the substantial sum—comprising contributions from advocates nationwide—to this trust. Reddy questioned the legality of the move, stating, “I know of no provision of the which permits the of a to be transferred to a private trust registered by its own Chairman.” He also alleged that no member of the Council had been shown the , raising serious concerns about transparency and accountability.
Furthermore, Reddy claimed that law colleges approaching the BCI for approval or renewal were being pressured to make “contributions” to this trust, with demands ranging from ₹25 lakh to ₹1 crore. He described this as an : “The power of approval and renewal under the Advocates Act is a . It is not a licence to raise funds.” If true, these actions would represent a fundamental breach of the owed by the BCI to the legal profession.
and Appointments: Family Members in Key Positions
Reddy’s letter also detailed allegations of within the BCI establishment. He claimed that a “striking proportion” of the staff employed by the Council were persons connected to Mishra personally, including members of his family. These appointments were allegedly made without any record of advertisements, selection committee proceedings, or comparative merit lists being placed before the Council. Reddy argued that such practices undermined the integrity of the regulator and violated the principles of merit and fairness. He demanded the publication of the complete staff position on the BCI website to ensure transparency.
The NALSAR Controversy: A ‘’ Against Students
A key immediate trigger for the resignation demand was the BCI’s on against the 2026 graduating batch of , Hyderabad. The direction, issued from the Chairman’s office, instructed not to enrol any NALSAR graduate until further orders, and sought a report identifying students who had opposed the invitation of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as the convocation chief guest. The students’ objection stemmed from the CJI’s reported remarks that the did not have time to watch videos of the police action at Jantar Mantar during a protest by the Cockroach Janta Party.
Reddy condemned the action as a “ for having held an opinion,” noting that it was taken without any material being placed before the Council or a resolution authorizing it. “That single act… has done more damage to the standing of this Council than anything else in its history,” he wrote. The direction was withdrawn within hours following widespread criticism from the Bar Association, the , and the itself. The CJI had strongly disapproved, stating, “It’s a dialogue between me and students, who are they (the BCI) to interfere?” Mishra later apologized, but Reddy argued the damage was done.
Extended Tenure and Factionalism: 14 Years at the Helm
Reddy also highlighted Mishra’s prolonged hold on the chairmanship. Mishra first became BCI Chairman in and, except for a brief period in , has remained in office through successive elections, despite the statutory term being only two years. Reddy remarked, “An elected office that has one occupant for fourteen years has ceased, in any real sense, to be an elected office.” He further accused the Chairman of sustaining factions within , undermining the unity and integrity of the profession.
Demands for Audit and Institutional Reform
Beyond the resignation demand, Reddy has sought several remedial measures: (1) a of the accounts of both the BCI and BCI Trust PEARL-First from the date of the trust’s registration by an independent firm empanelled with the ; (2) an immediate halt to all “contributions,” donations, or payments from law colleges and universities to the Council or any connected trust; (3) publication of the trust’s and the complete BCI staff list on the website; and (4) a Special Meeting of the Council to consider the allegations.
Broader Implications for the Legal Profession
The crisis unfolding at the BCI has profound implications for the legal profession in India. As the empowered under the Advocates Act, the BCI is responsible for maintaining standards of legal education, regulating the conduct of advocates, and safeguarding the interests of the bar. Allegations of , , and regulatory overreach strike at the heart of its legitimacy. If the claims are substantiated, it could trigger parliamentary scrutiny, litigation, and possibly a restructuring of the regulatory framework. Moreover, the public repudiation of the BCI by the , bar associations, and law students signals a loss of confidence that may require more than a change in leadership. Reddy’s letter concludes with a stark warning: “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.”
Conclusion
The demand by BCI Co-Chairman for Chairman ’s resignation is a watershed moment in the history of the Indian legal profession. It raises critical questions about financial probity, governance, and the accountability of a body that holds immense power over the lives of lakhs of advocates and law students. Whether Mishra will step down or resist the call remains to be seen, but the allegations, if proven true, could lead to far-reaching reforms in the regulation of the legal profession. The legal community watches with bated breath as an internal battle for the soul of the Bar Council of India unfolds.
