New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India indicated that it will examine the reconstitution of the Bar Council of India (BCI) after the ongoing State Bar Council election process is completed. The Court also directed that the Attorney General (AG) and Solicitor General (SG) should be associated with all major policy decisions of the BCI during the interim period.
Why Is The Supreme Court Examining The BCI
The matter relates to petitions challenging the functioning, governance structure, and continuation of office-bearers in the Bar Council of India.
Read also: Draft Advocates (Amendment) Bill 2026: Top 5 Changes Proposed by the Bar Council of India
During the hearing, senior lawyers raised concerns regarding notifications issued by the BCI, tenure-related issues, and the process through which the apex bar body is being administered. The Court emphasized that its focus is on the institution and not on individual office-bearers.
BCI Reconstitution: What Did The Supreme Court Say
The Supreme Court observed that until a newly elected Bar Council of India is constituted, important policy decisions should involve consultation with the Attorney General and Solicitor General.
The Court stated that every significant policy decision must be placed before these top law officers to ensure transparency and proper oversight during the transition period.
Focus On Completing The Election Process
The Bench noted that the immediate priority is to complete the remaining statutory processes connected with State Bar Council elections. Only after the election process is completed and representatives are elected to the BCI will the Court consider the issue of reconstituting the national bar body.
State Bar Council Elections And BCI Reconstitution Process
The Bar Council of India is composed of representatives elected from State Bar Councils. Once newly elected State Bar Councils are formed, they must elect their representatives to the BCI. After this process is completed, a reconstituted Bar Council of India can formally begin functioning.
Timeline Under Consideration
The Supreme Court indicated that a timeline may be prescribed after State Bar Councils complete their formation and elect representatives. The Court expressed optimism that the reconstitution process can move forward quickly once elections are finalized.
BCI Reconstitution: Concerns Raised Over Leadership And Notifications
Senior advocates appearing in the matter questioned certain BCI resolutions and notifications related to the tenure of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson. Arguments were made that existing rules prescribe a limited tenure, while some notifications appeared to extend office-bearers’ positions beyond the standard term. These issues remain under judicial examination.
PEARL Trust Also Comes Under Scrutiny
During the hearing, concerns were raised regarding the Bar Council of India Trust for Promotion of Education, Legal and Professional Reforms and Improvement in Research (PEARL Trust). Petitioners questioned the structure of the trust, transfer of assets, and provisions relating to permanent trusteeship. They argued that trustees should remain linked to the offices they hold rather than enjoy perpetual control.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court discussed whether an elected body can create permanent trusteeships for specific individuals when the composition of that elected body changes over time. The Bench suggested that trusteeship connected to an office differs significantly from trusteeship granted permanently to an individual.
Read also: Turning Point for Indian Lawyers: Supreme Court Questions BCI’s Ban in Bar Council Elections
FAQs
The Supreme Court has said that all important BCI policy decisions should involve consultation with the Attorney General and Solicitor General during the interim period.
The Court is examining issues related to BCI governance, elections, office-bearer tenure, and institutional functioning after State Bar Council elections are completed.
Questions have been raised about the structure of the PEARL Trust, transfer of assets, and provisions allowing permanent trusteeship, which are currently under judicial scrutiny.
