Back
Supreme Court Scrutinizes BCI's PEARL Trust: Can Elected Body Create Perpetual Trustees?
The on Thursday turned its judicial lens on the 's (BCI) , questioning the legality of provisions that allow current office-bearers, including Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, to remain as permanent trustees even after their tenure in the elected statutory body ends. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana posed fundamental questions about the power of an elected corporate entity to create a trust that perpetuates individual trusteeship beyond the elected term. The Court also directed that all major policy decisions of the BCI be taken in consultation with the Attorney General and Solicitor General until the council is reconstituted through fresh elections, and laid down a timeline to expedite the election process for new .
Trust Deed Under Fire
The hearing centered on petitions challenging the prolonged continuation of BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra and the governance of the
, which was constituted in
to replace the earlier BCI Trust.
, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the trust deed permits the current managing trustees—including Mishra—to continue in that capacity even after they cease to be office-bearers of the BCI.
"They will continue until they resign or are discharged by law,"
he submitted, highlighting that the trust subsequently established a law university in Goa and that there was no clarity on the finances of the trust or the university.
pointed out that the earlier BCI Trust deed required trustees to be members of the council and would automatically cease upon losing membership. The new deed, however, severs that link, allowing individuals to hold perpetual control over trust assets that were originally created from BCI's funds. added that the had now secured a tender for land in Amaravati for another law university, while in Goa it already held 56 acres. called for strict scrutiny of the trust's financial activities, noting that the trust received Rs 4.41 crore in a single financial year.
Permanent Trusteeship: A Legal Anomaly?
Justice Bagchi zeroed in on the core legal issue: the
, as a juristic body under
, is composed of elected members.
"Can those elected members thereby become permanent trustees when the composition of the corporate entity, which set up the trust, is an elected body?"
he asked. He noted that the present office-bearers are continuing under the transitional proviso to
, which allows them to remain until successors are elected.
"Can these members create a Trust where the members themselves perpetuate their rights of trustees beyond their capacity?"
Justice Bagchi questioned.
Drawing a distinction between
and individual trusteeship, he observed that
"ex-officio members can be perpetual trustees by their office and not the members."
But when the body corporate itself is an elected one, not a permanent one,
"can that elected body create a
?"
he posed.
"If the
Chairman is ex-officio perpetual member...but an individual, by name, unless he continues to be a member of an elected member, how can he be a trustee?"
The bench's line of reasoning suggests that the trust deed may be
the statutory scheme, as it allows individuals to bypass the democratic accountability inherent in the BCI's composition.
Oversight and Reconstitution Roadmap
The petitioners sought a high-level investigation into the trust's affairs over the past six years, with Gupta proposing an oversight committee comprising the Attorney General or Solicitor General. The bench, however, proceeded cautiously, mindful of the ongoing State Bar Council elections.
"Let us go step by step. Instead of going by the will and wish of the elected body, if we constitute a committee, that may also be subject matter of criticism,"
CJI Surya Kant remarked. He emphasised that the immediate priority was to complete the election process for
, which would then elect their representatives to the BCI.
The Court directed that a timeline be laid down to expedite the notification of newly elected , so that they can elect BCI members in a time-bound manner. The bench also recorded the BCI's undertaking that the Attorney General and Solicitor General would be involved in any policy decision taken during the interim period. This oversight mechanism aims to prevent unilateral actions by the current office-bearers while the reconstitution process is underway. The matter has been listed for to review progress.
Broader Implications for Bar Governance
The Supreme Court's intervention comes against the backdrop of the controversy, where Chairman Mishra had issued directions against enrolling graduates after they objected to Chief Justice Surya Kant being invited as a guest at the university's convocation. Mishra later apologised following widespread criticism. The petitions challenging his tenure argue that BCI rules prescribe a two-year term for the chairman and vice-chairman, and that notifications purporting to extend it to five years are invalid. The Court has indicated that Mishra's continuation is only "" until a new BCI is constituted.
The legal questions raised by the PEARL Trust have far-reaching implications for other statutory bodies that create trusts using public or quasi-public assets. If an elected body can lock in individuals as permanent trustees, it effectively insulates trust management from democratic oversight and accountability. The Supreme Court's scrutiny signals that such arrangements must align with the temporary and representative nature of the parent body. The case also underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring that regulatory bodies like the BCI function transparently and in accordance with the , especially when dealing with substantial assets and the administration of legal education.
Conclusion
As the Supreme Court awaits the completion of State Bar Council elections, the spotlight remains firmly on the BCI's governance structure. The questions posed by Justice Bagchi and the bench's directions for AG/SG oversight reflect a deep concern about the concentration of power and the potential for self-perpetuation within the country's apex legal body. With the next hearing set for , the legal community will be watching closely to see how the reconstitution unfolds and whether the PEARL Trust's permanent trusteeship provisions will be struck down. The outcome could reshape the way statutory bodies manage trusts and ensure that elected office-bearers do not outlast their democratic mandate.
