
A writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court by advocate Yogamaya MG challenging the continued chairmanship of Manan Kumar Mishra at the Bar Council of India (BCI). The petition, reported by LiveLaw and Barandbench, argues that Mishra has held the post since 2012, barring a brief break in 2014, and was elected unopposed for a seventh consecutive term in March 2025. It specifically challenges a Gazette notification from April 2025 that extends his tenure to 2030, contending that BCI Rule 12(2) limits the chairman's term to two years.

The petition seeks Mishra's removal, fresh court-supervised elections, and a cumulative term limit with a rotational system. It also raises questions about his political neutrality after he was nominated to the Rajya Sabha by the BJP in 2024, and about BCI communications on political issues. A major demand is for an independent committee, headed by a former Supreme Court judge and assisted by a CAG-nominated auditor, to probe the BCI Trust PEARL-FIRST and the finances of the All India Bar Examination (AIBE).
Separately, LiveMint reports that BCI Co-Chairman YR Sadasiva Reddy has written to Mishra seeking his resignation within 15 days. Reddy's letter, according to the report, alleges the diversion of Rs 150 crore of Council funds to a private trust controlled by Mishra and the appointment of family members without transparency. The petition also seeks an interim administrative committee to run BCI if the court orders Mishra's removal.
LiveLaw and Barandbench report the petition as a straightforward legal challenge, focusing on tenure rules and financial oversight. LiveMint leads with the dramatic internal resignation demand from Co-Chairman Reddy and the Rs 150 crore diversion allegation, framing the story as a crisis of governance. The pro-government framing is absent here, no source defends Mishra. The measured read: the petition raises serious procedural and financial questions, but the most concrete allegation, the Rs 150 crore figure, comes from a co-chairman's letter, not a court filing or audit. Watch for the Supreme Court's response on whether to entertain the petition and for any independent audit it may order.
Coverage: 3 sources, 2 neutral, 1 sensationalist
Sources (3): livelaw.in (neutral report), barandbench.com (neutral report), livemint.com (sensationalist)
This story was synthesised by AI from the 3 sources linked above. Methodology and corrections.
Updated: this story now draws on 3 sources.