A petition before the Supreme Court has put the Bar Council of India (BCI) under the spotlight, seeking structural reforms to the way its top leadership is elected and how long its chairman and vice-chairman can remain in office.
Filed by advocate M. Varadhan, through advocates Sandeep Pandey and Rajesh Singh Chauhan, the plea challenges the proviso to Section 4(3) of the Advocates Act, 1961, Bar and Bench reported.
The provision allows a BCI member to continue in office until a successor is elected. The petitioner argues that, in practice, such a provision can facilitate prolonged occupancy of key positions and weaken meaningful rotation in the country's apex regulatory body for lawyers.
Manan Kumar Mishra was first elected as Chairman of the BCI in 2012. After a brief intervening period when Shri Biri Singh Sinsinwar served as chairman from April 17, 2014, to November 9, 2014, Mishra returned to the post on November 9, 2014 and has remained in the chair ever since. He was most recently re-elected unopposed for a record seventh consecutive term on March 1, 2025.
Mishra’s Nearly 12-Year Tenure
As of August 2026, he has therefore remained at the helm for approximately 11 years and nine months.
His tenure is particularly notable because the BCI Rules prescribe a two-year term for the chairman and vice-chairman, subject to the member’s tenure in the Council.
Mishra has, however, remained chairman through repeated re-elections. He was elected unopposed for a record seventh consecutive term in March 2025.
In simple terms, a standard two-year term would ordinarily mean that six full terms amount to 12 years. Mishra's continuous tenure is now approaching that mark, despite the chairman's post being designed around two-year election cycles.
The issue raised by the petition is therefore not that Mishra has simply held one exceptionally long statutory term. Rather, it is that repeated re-election has allowed one individual to remain in the same leadership position for nearly 12 years.
What Does the Petition Seek?
The petition argues that elections alone do not necessarily guarantee meaningful institutional democracy if the same individuals continue to dominate key positions.
It seeks a fixed two-year tenure for the BCI chairman and vice-chairman and proposes a lifetime limit of three terms, whether consecutive or otherwise.
The petitioner also wants safeguards against circumventing such limits through alternative designations, interim arrangements, nominations, committees, re-elections or similar mechanisms.
Another major demand is a transparent and equitable rotational system for the chairman's post, ensuring that representatives from different states and regions get a genuine opportunity to lead the national regulator.
The petition points out that representatives from 20 of India's 28 states have not held the BCI chairmanship in the past 30 years, despite the Council's national character.
Why Regional Rotation Is Being Demanded
According to the Bar and Bench report, the petitioner argues that the BCI represents the legal profession across India and that its leadership should reflect that national character.
The concern is that prolonged control by the same individuals can limit the entry of new representatives, ideas and regional perspectives.
The plea therefore seeks broader institutional reforms covering not only leadership tenure but also financial, regulatory and institutional accountability.
The central argument is that a democratic election process should produce meaningful changes in leadership over time rather than merely provide a mechanism through which existing office-bearers can repeatedly return to power.
The NALSAR Controversy That Put BCI Under the Spotlight
The petition comes shortly after a controversy involving the NALSAR University of Law in Hyderabad brought the BCI's decision-making powers into sharp focus.
The controversy began after students at NALSAR launched a campaign opposing the university's invitation to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to attend its convocation as chief guest.
Following the student campaign, Mishra, in his capacity as BCI chairman, directed State Bar Councils not to enrol the university's 2026 graduating batch as advocates until further orders.
The move triggered strong reactions from students, lawyers and others, with concerns that an entire graduating batch could face professional consequences because of a student campaign.
The BCI subsequently withdrew or modified the directive, saying that the vast majority of students were innocent and that proceedings against the 2026 batch had been closed.
Supreme Court Questioned BCI’s Intervention
The NALSAR controversy subsequently reached the Supreme Court.
A bench led by CJI Surya Kant questioned the BCI's intervention and emphasised that students have a right to protest. The court also viewed the episode as essentially a disagreement or dialogue between the Chief Justice and the students rather than a matter warranting collective punishment.
The Supreme Court issued notice to the BCI and directed that no punitive action be taken against the students or faculty in connection with the episode.
The controversy has consequently become part of the broader debate surrounding the extent of regulatory authority exercised by the BCI and the safeguards needed when such powers affect students and young lawyers.
Mishra’s Other Role: Rajya Sabha MP
Mishra's position has also attracted attention because he holds another prominent public role.
He is a senior advocate and a BJP-nominated Rajya Sabha MP from Bihar, while simultaneously serving as chairman of the Bar Council of India.
The two positions are institutionally distinct, but his dual role has contributed to public discussion about the concentration of responsibilities and the need for strong accountability mechanisms in professional regulatory bodies.
The Supreme Court petition does not, by itself, establish that holding the two positions is legally impermissible. Instead, the dual role forms part of the wider context in which questions are being raised about institutional independence, concentration of authority and leadership accountability.
What Makes the Tenure Issue Significant?
The BCI is India's apex statutory body regulating the legal profession and playing a central role in matters involving advocates, legal education and professional standards.
That makes the question of who controls its top office and for how long more significant than an ordinary organisational leadership dispute.
The petition's argument is essentially about institutional checks and succession: whether a national regulatory body should allow its leadership to remain concentrated in the hands of the same individuals for extended periods through repeated elections.
It also asks whether the law should provide clearer limits to prevent indefinite or near-indefinite occupancy of senior posts.
At its heart, the case raises a larger question for India's legal regulatory system: Can repeated elections alone ensure democratic accountability, or should statutory term limits and regional rotation be built into the system to guarantee regular change in leadership?
