Back
BCI Member Alleges Unilateral Decisions, Exclusion of AG and SG | Supreme Court Observes Procedural Lapses
In a significant development before the , a member of the (BCI) has levelled serious allegations of procedural irregularities, , and the systematic exclusion of the country’s top law officers from the Council’s deliberations. The affidavit, filed by BCI member in response to a writ petition challenging the continuation of as BCI Chairman, paints a picture of a statutory body functioning in defiance of its own rules and the broader scheme of the .
Background of the Case
The matter arises from a writ petition filed by advocate , who challenged the continuation of as Chairman of the BCI beyond the tenure prescribed under the . The Supreme Court had earlier observed that Mishra’s continuation should be treated as a for day-to-day functioning, and that the Attorney General should be involved in policy decisions. It is in this context that Kumar’s reply affidavit—filed through Advocate-on-Record —has substantially supported the concerns raised by the petitioner regarding the governance, functioning, and finances of the apex statutory body of advocates.
Allegations of
Kumar’s affidavit contends that the under the Advocates Act is vested in the BCI collectively and cannot be converted into the individual authority of an office-bearer. According to him, there has been a “consistent pattern of ” in the BCI. He has further alleged that agendas for meetings have on several occasions been circulated or posted in messaging groups only shortly before meetings, leaving members insufficient time to study matters and participate effectively in deliberations.
“The Minutes of the Meetings have never been circulated amongst the members for confirmation and approval. This is a serious procedural violation,” the affidavit states. “Important institutional and policy decisions have also, on several occasions, been communicated in the name of the without the underlying deliberations or resolutions being placed before the members. This practice violates the fundamental principle that the statutory Council must function as a with of all members.”
Exclusion of Attorney General and Solicitor General
Perhaps the most striking allegation concerns the treatment of the Attorney General for India and the Solicitor General of India, who are of the BCI under the Advocates Act. Kumar states that despite the statutory mandate, notices and agendas of BCI meetings have not been circulated to them, effectively preventing their in the Council’s deliberations.
“This omission is particularly significant given that the Attorney General and Solicitor General, as the principal law officers of the Union, bring institutional perspectives essential to the functioning of the BCI,” Kumar’s affidavit reads. He claims that he raised the issue with the Chairman, who gave an assurance that notices and agendas would be circulated for future meetings. “However, despite this commitment, the assurance has not been complied with, and the practice of excluding them from proper notice continues. This non-compliance not only violates the but also demonstrates a pattern of institutional indifference to commitments made regarding and .”
These allegations assume added significance in light of the Supreme Court’s earlier observations that the Attorney General should be involved in policy decisions and that the participation of the law officers is necessary when matters with significant policy implications are considered.
The NALSAR Incident
The affidavit also addresses the controversial direction issued by the BCI Chairman to stop the enrolment of the 2026 graduating batch of , Hyderabad. Kumar states that this decision was not placed before the General Council for deliberation and that no resolution authorising the action had been disclosed. He subsequently wrote to the Chairman objecting to the action.
Though the decision was later withdrawn by the BCI Chairman, Kumar argues that “this incident demonstrates a pattern of unilateral exercise of institutional authority by the Chairman, contrary to the which vests such authority in the collective Council.” The incident, he says, is emblematic of a broader dysfunction within the BCI.
Questions Over
Kumar has also raised serious concerns regarding the constitution and functioning of the BCI Trust, PEARL-FIRST. He states that despite repeated requests, he was not furnished the original Trust Deed for a considerable period. Upon examining the 2020 Trust Deed, he found provisions under which certain persons were constituted as “Permanent Managing Trustees,” allowing them to continue as trustees even after ceasing to be members of the BCI.
The Supreme Court had previously questioned these provisions during its hearing on , noting that allowing BCI office-bearers to remain as permanent trustees even after their tenure raises obvious and .
Further, the affidavit questions the financial arrangements between the BCI and PEARL-FIRST in relation to the (AIBE). Kumar asks under what authority under the Advocates Act or the Rules framed under it receipts arising from the AIBE—which he describes as a regulatory function of the BCI—can be credited or transferred to a separate Trust. He has sought the complete accounting trail of AIBE receipts, including the accounts into which examination fees were credited, transfers between the BCI and PEARL-FIRST, payments to examination agencies and vendors, surplus generated from individual examinations, and the eventual utilisation of such surplus.
Challenge to the Five-Year Tenure
On the continuation of as Chairman, Kumar raises questions over the legal basis for his five-year tenure. The affidavit refers to , which prescribes a two-year tenure for the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, or until cessation of membership, whichever is earlier.
Kumar contrasts this with the Gazette Notification recording Mishra’s tenure from to . He describes the difference as an “apparent inconsistency” and says the authority for extending the tenure to five years, and its consistency with the , requires examination. This issue goes to the heart of the legal challenge in the pending writ petition.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Broader Implications
The Supreme Court has already indicated its discomfort with the state of affairs in the BCI. In its earlier hearing, the Court observed that until a newly elected BCI is constituted, Mishra’s continuation should be treated as a , and that the Attorney General should be involved in policy decisions. The Court also suggested involving the Attorney General and Solicitor General when matters having significant policy implications are considered.
Kumar’s affidavit provides a detailed factual basis for the concerns the Court has flagged. If the Court accepts the allegations, it could lead to directions for the reconstitution of the BCI, stricter adherence to procedural rules, and possibly a fresh election for the Chairman’s post. The issues surrounding the and the financial management of the AIBE could also invite scrutiny from other regulatory or investigative bodies.
Conclusion
The allegations made by BCI member strike at the very foundation of how the —the regulatory body for the legal profession—functions. The repeated exclusion of members and the top law officers from decision-making, the unilateral actions on critical matters like the NALSAR enrolment, and the opaque financial arrangements with the raise serious questions about the governance of the Council. With the Supreme Court already monitoring the situation, the coming hearings will be closely watched by the legal community for potential reforms that could reshape the administration of India’s largest legal body.
