Supreme Court: BCI Reconstitution, Women Quota Under Advocates Act 1961

• The Supreme Court is considering reconstituting the Bar Council of India under Section 4 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
• Both the Attorney General for India and the Solicitor General for India are now mandated to be actively involved in all Bar Council of India policy decisions.
• This development stems from a plea challenging the five-year tenure of BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, alleging it violates BCI Rules.
• The Court has issued strict timelines for State Bar Councils to ensure 30% women representation and elect new office-bearers and BCI representatives.
• The Supreme Court will review compliance reports from State Bar Councils before proceeding with the Bar Council of India's reconstitution.

This significant development signals a potential overhaul of the Bar Council of India's structure and decision-making processes, with the Supreme Court poised to consider its reconstitution under Section 4 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

The Supreme Court of India is actively considering the reconstitution of the Bar Council of India (BCI), the apex regulatory body for the legal profession, under the provisions of Section 4 of the Advocates Act, 1961. This potential overhaul comes amidst a significant challenge to the BCI's governance and the prolonged tenure of its office-bearers. A plea brought before the Court specifically questioned the five-year term of BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, alleging it contravenes the two-year tenure stipulated by the Bar Council of India Rules.

The Article 32 writ petition, filed on August 21, 2026, by AoR Deepak Prakash, extends beyond individual tenures, raising fundamental concerns about the BCI's overall functioning, democratic accountability, transparency, and institutional governance. Petitioners have called for fresh elections, the implementation of term limits, greater regional rotation among office-bearers, and an independent audit of the BCI's operations. These demands underscore a broader push for reforms within the legal regulatory framework.

Before addressing the reconstitution of the national body, the Supreme Court has issued specific directives concerning the State Bar Councils. Building upon an earlier order, the Court reiterated the necessity for 30% representation of women members in every State Bar Council. This mandate specifies that 20% of these positions must be secured through direct elections, while the remaining 10% are to be filled via co-option.

To facilitate this, the Chief Justices of the respective jurisdictional High Courts have been tasked with nominating two women members for co-option, preferably selecting from former women judges of the High Court or senior women members of the Bar. The Court has set a strict timeline for these actions: Chief Justices must complete the co-option exercise within two weeks, and subsequently, the State Bar Councils must notify their newly constituted bodies within one week. Following this, the newly formed State Bar Councils are required to elect their chairperson, vice-chairperson, other office-bearers, and crucially, one representative to the Bar Council of India, as prescribed by Section 4(1)(c) of the Advocates Act, 1961, all within two weeks of their constitution being notified. All State Bar Councils are mandated to submit compliance reports detailing these steps.

A pivotal aspect of the Supreme Court's intervention is the immediate and ongoing involvement of the nation's top legal officers in the BCI's decision-making. The Court has explicitly ordered that both the Attorney General for India and the Solicitor General for India shall be actively associated with every policy decision taken by the Bar Council of India. This directive was affirmed by Senior Advocate Guru Krishnakumar, representing the BCI and its office-bearers, who informed the Court that these high-ranking officials would indeed be consulted before any policy decisions are finalized.

The Supreme Court has indicated that its consideration of the Bar Council of India's reconstitution under Section 4 of the Advocates Act, 1961, will proceed only after the receipt and review of the compliance reports from the State Bar Councils regarding the co-option exercise and the formation of their new bodies. While acknowledging other issues raised in the petition concerning BCI governance accountability India, the Court has prioritized the completion of these foundational steps, signaling a methodical approach to addressing the challenges within the legal regulatory structure.

This development signals potential significant changes in the governance and regulatory framework of the legal profession in India, particularly concerning the Bar Council of India's structure and decision-making processes. Lawyers and compliance officers should closely monitor the Supreme Court's directives and the increased involvement of the Attorney General and Solicitor General, as these could lead to new professional standards, accountability measures, or changes in how legal practice is regulated.

Source: Original reporting via legal news sources.