SC questions Bar Council chief's 5-year tenure, puts policy decisions under AG, SG watch

Hindustan TimesIndependentCenter2 hr. ago

The Supreme Court of India has intervened in the governance of the Bar Council of India (BCI), directing that the Attorney General (AG) and Solicitor General (SG) must oversee all policy decisions until the BCI is reconstituted through new elections. The court ruled that BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra’s extended tenure beyond 2030 is invalid, stating his position is only a temporary 'pro tem' role until fresh elections occur. This follows a legal challenge questioning the validity of notifications extending Mishra and Vice-Chairman S Prabhakaran’s terms from three to five years, which conflicts with the BCI Rules prescribing a two-year tenure. Senior advocate Madhavi Divan argued that Mishra was elected for a term ending April 16, 2030, but a January 2025 resolution attempted to extend his term further, violating procedural norms.

Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced account of the legal and procedural challenges surrounding the BCI's governance, focusing on institutional compliance rather than partisan critique. It reports on judicial rulings, legal arguments, and procedural violations without overtly favoring any political group

Times of IndiaIndependentCenter3 hr. ago

The Supreme Court of India ruled that the Bar Council of India (BCI) must involve the Attorney General for India and the Solicitor General for India in all policy decisions. This directive came during hearings of writ petitions challenging the extended tenure of BCI chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra. The petitioners, including advocates M Varadhan and Yogamaya MG, argue that Mishra's tenure has been prolonged beyond its legal limits, with claims that he initially served until 2012 but retook the position in 2014 and has held it continuously since. The petitioners also requested an audit of the BCI's finances and those of the BCI-PEARL FIRST TRUST. The court's ruling highlights concerns over governance within the BCI, which regulates the legal profession in India.

Bias read (Center): The article presents a factual account of the Supreme Court's ruling and the legal challenges against the BCI chairperson's tenure. It does not exhibit overtly biased language, one-sided sourcing, or omissions that would indicate a clear ideological lean. The report focuses on the legal proceedings,