BCI Co-Chairman Demands Transparency Over ₹150 Crore Trust Fund, Bar Council Accountability
Reddy Fires Back at Karnataka Bar Council in Escalating Trust Fund and Appointment Row
Senior Advocate , the Co-Chairman of the (BCI), has issued a forceful rebuttal to a press release from the , escalating a bitter dispute over the transfer of ₹150 crore to a newly registered trust and the legitimacy of the Council's administrator. The exchange marks a deepening rift between Reddy and BCI Chairman , whose resignation Reddy had called for days earlier.
The Genesis of the Conflict
The confrontation began when Reddy, on , penned a letter to the BCI Chairman raising four specific grievances: the undisclosed transfer of the Council's funds to a trust whose deed no member had seen; appointments made without advertisement or merit list; and a direction issued against graduates of on , without any supporting material. Hours later, —described in his own release as the "administrator" of the —issued a press statement defending Mishra and attacking Reddy's .
Reddy's response, released on , systematically dismantled Kamaraddi's credibility and reiterated the substantive demands.
Who Speaks for Karnataka Bar?
Reddy's first salvo targeted the authority of the man who purported to represent the Karnataka Bar.
"The release does not come from an elected Chairman. Shri
was not elected to the office he holds. He was nominated by Shri
,"
the press statement read. Noting that Kamaraddi is merely a caretaker awaiting the constitution of the newly elected Council, Reddy argued that a nominee of the very office-bearer under scrutiny cannot be an independent voice. He pointed to similar situations in Kerala, where a
succeeded in staying such a nomination.
Reddy further accused Kamaraddi of being ill-informed, stating that he had never attended a BCI meeting and thus could not know what Reddy had said or not said in those forums. The biography of the person issuing the release, Reddy implied, undermined its credibility.
Substantive Allegations Remain Unanswered
At the heart of the dispute lies the fate of ₹150 crore in BCI funds. Reddy asserted that he had actively opposed the
to transfer the funds to the trust and placed his opposition on record. He challenged the Bar Council to produce the
of that meeting.
"Let them be produced. I would welcome nothing more,"
he wrote.
He also dismissed any suggestion that a
passed by the Karnataka Bar Council had effectively removed him from the BCI.
"Under the Rules of the
as amended, a State Bar Council has no power to recall or remove its representative to the
,"
Reddy explained, adding that no
followed from such a
.
Legal and Procedural Invalidity
Reddy's response also addressed the claim that he was merely a "former member" of the BCI. He clarified that until the newly elected
elects a replacement, he continues to hold office as a Member and Co-Chairman of the BCI.
"That the person who issued this release does not know the composition of the very body he purports to speak for is itself an answer to the question of how the release came to be issued, and on whose instructions,"
he stated.
He also refuted allegations of political motivation, noting that he has never belonged to any political party, while contrasting Kamaraddi's well-known political affiliations and the political status of BCI Chairman , who is a sitting Member of Parliament.
Demand for Accountability
Reddy's closing remarks underscored his primary objective: institutional transparency. He called for the to be circulated to all BCI members, of relevant meetings to be produced, staff appointments to be published on the Council's website, and an by a firm empanelled with the .
"An institution that can answer a question by producing a document, and instead answers it by questioning the
of the person asking, has told the profession everything it needs to know,"
Reddy observed. He concluded with a direct challenge:
"Let the
be circulated to the Members. Let the
be produced. Let the staff position be placed on the Council's website. Let the accounts be audited by an independent firm empanelled with the
. If that is done, the question of my
will not matter in the least — and if it is not done, no press release will answer it."
The controversy now extends beyond Karnataka. Five BCI members—not limited to the state—have jointly written to the Chairman requesting his resignation on grounds including the amendment extending his tenure, the conduct of General Council meetings, and the non-disclosure of trust records. The legal profession now watches closely to see whether the leadership responds with transparency or further deflection.
Key Observations from the Judgment
-
"The release does not come from an elected Chairman. Shri was not elected to the office he holds. He was nominated by Shri ."
-
"I opposed the for transfer of the Council's funds to the new trust when it was moved, and I placed that opposition on record. The of that meeting will show it. Let them be produced."
-
"Under the Rules of the as amended, a State Bar Council has no power to recall or remove its representative to the ."
-
"An institution that can answer a question by producing a document, and instead answers it by questioning the of the person asking, has told the profession everything it needs to know."
-
"If that is done, the question of my will not matter in the least — and if it is not done, no press release will answer it."