Bar Council of India Co-Chairman YR Sadashiva Reddy has asked Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra to resign within 15 days, citing concerns over the NALSAR student controversy, alleged financial irregularities and appointments. The demand comes as a separate Supreme Court petition challenges Mishra’s continued tenure and seeks changes to the way the BCI is governed.
Reddy asks Mishra to quit within 15 days
In a letter to Mishra, Reddy said he was raising the issue as an elected BCI member and senior member of the legal profession. He said staying silent would amount to failing the responsibility given to him by advocates.
Reddy has also sought a special BCI meeting to examine the issues raised in his letter. He has called for greater financial and administrative scrutiny of the council and related bodies.
- A special audit of BCI accounts and BCI Trust PEARL First
- Publication of the complete BCI staff list on its website
- A review of alleged financial transactions, including the claimed diversion of ₹150 crore
- A review of alleged family appointments and other administrative decisions
- An immediate halt to contributions or payments involving law colleges, universities and connected bodies
The allegations are attributed to Reddy and have not been established as findings by a court. The demand for Mishra’s resignation is therefore a political and professional call rather than a judicial determination of wrongdoing.
NALSAR controversy adds pressure on BCI chairman
The dispute follows the BCI’s controversial action involving students of Hyderabad’s NALSAR University of Law. The council had initially directed state bar councils not to enrol the university’s 2026 graduating batch after a dispute linked to student opposition to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant attending the convocation.
The order was later withdrawn after widespread criticism. Mishra subsequently apologised to law students and said students should remain free to express their views.
The NALSAR episode has since triggered protests and fresh demands for accountability from sections of the legal community. The All India Young Advocates Association also called a protest outside the BCI office seeking Mishra’s resignation.
Supreme Court plea challenges Mishra’s tenure
A separate petition before the Supreme Court has questioned Mishra’s continued position as BCI chairman. The plea filed by advocate Yogamaya MG argues that his prolonged tenure is inconsistent with the rules governing the chairman’s term.
The petition states that Mishra first became chairman in 2012, returned to the position in November 2014 and was elected unopposed again in March 2025. It challenges the BCI notification that recorded his latest tenure from April 2025 to April 2030.
The petitioner argues that Rule 12(2) of the BCI Rules provides a two-year term for the chairman and vice-chairman. The plea seeks fresh elections and limits on the number of terms that a person can serve in the top BCI posts.
Plea also seeks review of BCI finances
The Supreme Court petition goes beyond the question of Mishra’s tenure. It also seeks greater oversight of the BCI’s financial and administrative functioning, including an independent examination of the PEARL-FIRST trust.
Another petition filed earlier this month has similarly sought term limits, a rotational system for senior BCI posts and stronger institutional accountability.
Mishra rejects resignation demand
Mishra has rejected calls for his resignation. The demand has also received support from Abhijeet Dipke’s Cockroach Janta Party, which backed protests against the BCI chairman following the NALSAR controversy.
The campaign also used the phrase “legal cockroaches” while calling for lawyers to join the protest. Mishra objected to the description and said lawyers belong to a respected and highly intelligent profession.
The dispute now involves three separate issues: the fallout from the NALSAR episode, demands for financial and administrative accountability within the BCI, and the legal challenge to Mishra’s continued tenure. The Supreme Court proceedings will determine whether the tenure-related claims have legal merit.
