Bar Council of India (BCI) co-chairman YR Sadashiva Reddy has called for the immediate resignation of BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, citing eight grounds for his removal. According to reports from Live Law, Reddy sent a letter dated August 22, 2026, alleging irregularities in appointments, diversion of Council funds, financial dealings with law colleges, and other governance issues. The development came hours before a press conference proposed by the BCI was scheduled to be held at its office in New Delhi, which was postponed to August 24 citing concerns over large gatherings of advocates. Mr. Mishra is also facing a fresh petition filed on Friday (August 21, 2026) before the Supreme Court questioning his prolonged tenure. Reddy emphasized that he was writing to Mishra 'not as an adversary' but as an elected member of the Bar Council of India and a member of the profession for over three decades, adding that remaining silent would amount to 'a dereliction of the trust reposed in me by the advocates of this country'.
The primary ground for Reddy's demand centers on the BCI's handling of the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (Nalsar) controversy. As reported by Live Law, Reddy alleged that the BCI chairman's office directed that the 2026 graduating batch of Nalsar University of Law not be enrolled after students expressed an opinion related to their convocation. The controversy stems from the Council's August 13 circular directing State Bar Councils not to enrol graduates of Nalsar's 2026 batch, following objections by students to the participation of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant at their convocation. The directive was withdrawn within hours following criticism and Mishra subsequently issued a letter expressing regret, but Reddy said the episode had 'seriously damaged the BCI's standing'. The Bombay Bar Association on August 18 criticised the handling of the episode and described the apology as 'belated', while saying that Mr. Mishra ought to have already resigned. Earlier on Thursday (August 20, 2026), more than 200 lawyers gathered outside the BCI office under the banner of the All India Young Advocates Association, raising demands including reforms in the BCI's election mechanism and greater accountability in its functioning.
Reddy has raised serious concerns about ₹150 crore transferred from the BCI to BCI Trust PEARL-First, questioning why the new trust was created when the earlier BCI Trust was allowed to fall into disuse. According to Live Law, he noted that law colleges seeking approval or renewal from the BCI are being asked to contribute to PEARL-First, with alleged contributions ranging from ₹25 lakh to ₹1 crore. Reddy further alleged of contributions being demanded from law colleges seeking approval or renewal of approval, in amounts ranging from ₹25 lakhs to ₹50 lakhs to ₹1 crore. He questioned the creation process of the new Trust and stated that BCI members had not been shown its Trust Deed. He warned that 'It is not a licence to raise funds,' stating that accepting money from entities it regulates could undermine the regulator's authority. Reddy demanded a special audit of the BCI and BCI Trust PEARL-First from the Trust's registration to date, to be conducted by an independent firm empanelled with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG). He also called for an immediate halt to contributions, donations or payments from law colleges, universities or management by the council or any trust or body connected with it.
Reddy has raised concerns about Mishra's continued tenure as BCI chairman since 2012, including his re-election in 2025, stating that 'an elected office that has one occupant for fourteen years has ceased, in any real sense, to be an elected office'. As reported by Live Law, he noted that 'a striking proportion of the staff are persons connected to you personally, several of them being members of, or related to, your own family' and referred to protests by advocates seeking Mishra's resignation. Reddy emphasized that when the regulator is publicly repudiated by the profession it regulates, the question of the Chairman's continuance becomes 'a question of institutional survival'. He stated that 'the institution will not recover while you remain in the Chair' and concluded that 'The Bar of this country deserves better than what it is presently receiving from its own Council'. Reddy noted that he held no personal animosity towards Mishra and had served alongside him for a decade, adding that 'there are able persons in this Council capable of restoring it. Standing down now, of your own accord, is the one course still open to you that would be to your credit'.
Manan Mishra dismissed calls for his resignation on Friday, rejecting the demand backed by the CJP (Cockroach Janta Party). As reported by Live Law, Mishra's remarks came days after the CJP announced support for a protest at BCI, New Delhi seeking Mishra's resignation and called on 'legal cockroaches' to join in. The Rajya Sabha MP also rejected the use of this term for advocates, stating 'Don't you dare use the term ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''legal cockroaches'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' for advocates. Reddy's letter specifically addressed Mishra, stating 'I ask you to allow it that opportunity. I was not consulted. To the best of my knowledge, the Council as a body was not consulted' regarding the Nalsar controversy, emphasizing that 'when the regulator of a profession is publicly repudiated by the profession it regulates, by the students it is meant to nurture, and by the courts before which it appears, the question of its Chairman's continuance is no longer a matter of personal preference. It is a question of institutional survival'.
The controversy has reached the Supreme Court through a writ petition filed by advocate Yogamaya MG, challenging the April 2025 Gazette notification recording Mishra's tenure as BCI chairman from April 17, 2025 to April 16, 2030. The petitioner relies on Rule 12(2) of the BCI Rules, which provides a two-year tenure for the chairman and vice-chairman, or until cessation of membership, whichever is earlier. The plea contends that an administrative notification cannot extend the tenure beyond what the rules permit. The petition seeks quashing of the 2025 Gazette notification, cessation of Mishra and the vice-chairman, and fresh elections within a time-bound period under independent supervision. It also asks for a cap on the number of terms a person can serve as BCI chairman or vice-chairman, a cooling-off period and a rotational mechanism to allow representatives from different States and regions to lead the Council. The petition further seeks safeguards against term limits being circumvented through acting, ad hoc, officiating or interim appointments.
