Back
Bar Council of India Members Oppose Mishra's Proposed Resolution After Supreme Court Query
Three members of the have publicly opposed a proposed resolution by BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra to abolish the provision for in the , demanding comprehensive disclosure of the trust's deed, finances, and operations. The move comes days after the questioned the legality of allowing elected BCI members to serve as permanent trustees beyond their tenure.
In a letter dated
, addressed to the BCI Chairman and members,
,
, and
referred to a message posted by Mishra in the official BCI WhatsApp group. The message proposed that
"there shall be no
"
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 appears to be a direct response to the Supreme Court's observations on
, during a hearing where the Court questioned how an elected body could create a Trust with permanent trustees and specifically asked whether elected BCI members could
"
."
Challenge to Permanent Trusteeship
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
was introduced in the
."
In their letter, the members retorted,
"We are not aware of the reason,"
pointing out that the
had never been supplied to them despite repeated requests. They argued that the proposal to remove permanent trusteeship itself demonstrates that concerns previously raised regarding PEARL-FIRST require thorough examination. According to them, deleting the provision now would not answer questions about how it came to be included in the
in the first place.
The letter calls for an immediate and comprehensive examination of the registered dated . The members 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 or revenues could lawfully be transferred to the Trust, and whether rights created by the can subsequently be rewritten through ordinary resolutions.
Background: The Shift from to
The original BCI Trust, constituted in , required trustees to remain members of the BCI and automatically ceased to be trustees when they left the Council. The Trust was also subject to BCI's control and supervision. The deed, according to the letter, departed from this structure by allowing original Managing Trustees to continue in office even after their BCI membership ended. This departure is at the heart of the current controversy. The members have sought production of the notice convening the General Council meeting, the agenda and explanatory note relating to Item No. 474/, the complete draft circulated before the meeting, proof of circulation to members, attendance and voting records, any dissent or reservation, the resolution authorizing execution, and the final version registered with the authorities.
Demand for Full Disclosure
The members have also raised serious questions about the financial relationship between BCI and PEARL-FIRST. They seek an independent reconciliation of receipts and expenditure relating to every All India Bar Examination (AIBE) conducted since PEARL-FIRST commenced operations. The letter demands 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 utilization.
Specifically, the members have 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 references a communication by BCI to the (CIC) 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.
Appointments and Allegations of Favoritism
Beyond financial scrutiny, the BCI members have demanded a review of appointments at the . The letter refers 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.
Additionally, the letter highlights 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.
Legal Implications and Path Forward
The controversy raises fundamental questions about the governance of statutory bodies and the use of trust structures to perpetuate control beyond elected terms. The Supreme Court's query underscores the tension between the and the principles of . If the BCI, as a statutory body, cannot validly create a trust that insulates trustees from electoral cycles, the deed may be vulnerable to legal challenge.
The members have proposed that the BCI General Council undertake an 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 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.
This episode signals a growing demand for transparency within India's premier legal regulatory body. As the Supreme Court continues to scrutinize the trust's structure, the BCI faces pressure not only to address the immediate resolution but also to restore confidence in its governance. The outcome could set a precedent for how professional bodies manage their trusts and , particularly when public funds and are involved.
