NEW DELHI: The Bar Council of India (BCI) member N Manoj Kumar has raised serious questions over the functioning, decision-making process and financial arrangements of the Council in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court.
Kumar, in his affidavit copy filed in the top court, alleged that several important institutional and policy decisions were taken or issued in the name of BCI without adequate deliberation with BCI members. Even ex-officio members of BCI, the Attorney General and Solicitor General, were not regularly given notices and agenda of meetings.
This affidavit has been filed in the petition of advocate Yogamaya MG, in which the continuance of senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra as BCI Chairman has been challenged.
"Under the Advocates Act, powers are vested collectively in the BCI and cannot be made the personal prerogative of any single office-bearer. The agenda of the meetings was often posted in the messaging group just before the meeting began, leaving members with insufficient opportunity to study the issues and hold meaningful discussion. He also said that minutes of meetings were never circulated to members for confirmation and approval," the affidavit said.
It also referred to the August 13 order of the BCI Chairman barring enrolment of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad's 2026 batch students.
Kumar said, this decision was not placed before the General Council for consideration and no resolution authorising it surfaced. The order was later withdrawn. According to him, this incident is an example of unilateral exercise of institutional authority by the Chairman.
Kumar said that the Advocates Act makes the AG and SG ex-officio members of BCI, but notices and agenda of meetings were not provided to them. He had raised this issue before the Chairman and was assured that agenda would be sent to both law officers in future, but according to him, it was not complied with.
The affidavit has also questioned the structure of thr BCI and said that in the 2020 trust deed, certain persons were made 'Permanent Managing Trustees', which appears to provide for continuing as trustees even after BCI membership ends.
He has demanded a complete account of All India Bar Examination (AIBE) fees and transfer of funds between BCI and others.
The affidavit has also questioned the legal basis of the five-year tenure of the BCI Chairman. Citing Rule 12(2) of the BCI Rules, it says the tenure of Chairman and Vice-Chairman is fixed at two years.
