Supreme Court: BCI Decisions Without Deliberation, AG SG Not Notified

• A Bar Council of India member informed the Supreme Court that key BCI decisions are made without collective deliberation among its members.
• The Attorney General and Solicitor General, who are ex-officio members, allegedly do not receive notices or agendas for BCI meetings, preventing their participation.
• The Supreme Court had previously directed the active involvement of Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta in all BCI policy decisions.
• An August 2026 directive concerning NALSAR University of Law students was cited as an example of a significant action taken without BCI General Council deliberation.
• The BCI member proposed an ad hoc committee, potentially led by the AG or SG, to manage the Council's administration pending its reconstitution and new elections.

The Supreme Court's ongoing examination of these allegations underscores a critical period for the Bar Council of India, with potential implications for its governance structure and the validity of its future directives.

A member of the Bar Council of India (BCI), N. Manoj Kumar, has brought serious concerns before the Supreme Court, alleging that crucial decisions and communications are frequently made and issued in the name of the apex statutory body without adequate deliberation among its members. These submissions, made in a reply affidavit within ongoing proceedings concerning the BCI's operations and reconstitution, highlight a pattern of unilateral decision-making.

Kumar, who represents the Bar Council of Kerala within the BCI, specifically pointed out that the Attorney General for India and the Solicitor General of India, both designated as ex-officio members, have not been consistently provided with notices or agendas for BCI meetings. This alleged omission, he contends, effectively prevents their meaningful participation in the Council's deliberations. His affidavit substantially supports broader concerns raised in a writ petition regarding the BCI's transparency, accountability, democratic functioning, statutory powers, and financial affairs.

Further procedural irregularities were detailed, including claims that meeting agendas were often circulated or posted in messaging groups only shortly before scheduled meetings, leaving members insufficient time to properly review important matters and contribute effectively. Additionally, Kumar alleged that minutes from BCI meetings were not consistently circulated among members for confirmation and approval, a practice he argues is essential for accurate record-keeping, institutional transparency, and accountability.

The Advocates Act explicitly designates the Attorney General and Solicitor General as ex-officio members of the Bar Council of India, underscoring their integral role in the body's governance. Kumar's allegations suggest a systemic failure to uphold this statutory provision, thereby impeding the participation of these key legal officers in BCI affairs. He recounted raising this issue directly with the BCI Chairman, receiving an assurance that notices and agendas would be circulated to the two law officers for future meetings; however, this assurance was reportedly not honored, and the practice of exclusion continued.

These concerns gain further weight in light of a previous Supreme Court directive issued on September 2. The Court had explicitly instructed that Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta be actively involved in every policy decision undertaken by the BCI. This directive emerged during the Court's consideration of pleas challenging the continuation of Manan Kumar Mishra as BCI Chairman, and the Court had also indicated its intention to consider the reconstitution of the BCI following the completion of the State Bar Council election process. The legitimacy of BCI decisions without deliberation AG SG notice is thus a central point of contention in these ongoing legal proceedings.

To illustrate the alleged pattern of unilateral decision-making, N. Manoj Kumar cited a specific incident involving a communication issued on August 13, 2026. This directive instructed State Bar Councils not to enroll the graduating 2026 batch of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad. It also sought the identification of students who had participated in a campaign related to an invitation extended to the Chief Justice of India for their convocation.

According to Kumar's affidavit, this significant action was never presented before the BCI General Council for deliberation, nor was any resolution authorizing it disclosed. Kumar formally objected to this action in writing. Following his objection and subsequent intervention by the Supreme Court, the controversial direction was ultimately withdrawn, and the inquiry against the students was dropped. This incident, he argued, exemplifies how the statutory authority, which should be vested collectively in the BCI, was allegedly exercised as the individual authority of an office-bearer, highlighting Bar Council of India functioning irregularities.

The cumulative effect of these allegations underscores a critical need for enhanced transparency and adherence to democratic processes within the Bar Council of India. Kumar's submissions to the Supreme Court emphasize that the statutory authority of the BCI is inherently collective and should not be concentrated in the hands of any single office-bearer. The ongoing scrutiny by the Supreme Court, particularly regarding BCI decisions without deliberation AG SG notice, signals a potentially transformative period for the legal regulatory body.

Looking ahead, Kumar has proposed a provisional solution to ensure proper governance. He suggested that, pending the full reconstitution of the BCI and the election of its new office-bearers, the day-to-day administration of the Council could be entrusted to an ad hoc committee. This committee, he posited, could be effectively headed by either the Attorney General or the Solicitor General, providing a temporary but authoritative oversight structure. This proposal aims to address the immediate concerns about BCI functioning irregularities and ensure stability while the Supreme Court considers the broader implications for the BCI's future structure and operations, including the NALSAR enrolment directive BCI.

Lawyers and compliance officers should be aware that the legitimacy of Bar Council of India decisions is under scrutiny by the Supreme Court due to alleged procedural irregularities, potentially impacting the validity of BCI directives and requiring close monitoring of future regulatory changes for the legal profession.

Source: Original reporting via legal news sources.