#bar_council_of_india

Supreme Court Directs BCI to Consult Attorney General and Solicitor General on Policy Decisions The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the Bar Council of India (BCI) must seek the advice of the Attorney General and Solicitor General of India before making any policy decisions. The directive came during the court’s hearing of petitions challenging the validity of Manan Kumar Mishra’s prolonged tenure as BCI chairman. The court emphasized that all policy-related decisions by the BCI must involve active participation from the legal advisors of the government. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joyamalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana, was examining petitions that questioned the legality of Mishra’s extended tenure. The petitioner, advocate Yogamaya MG, argued that Mishra was first elected as BCI chairman in 2012, left the position temporarily in 2014, and was reappointed in November 2014. Since then, he has remained in office, leading to concerns about the duration of his term. The court’s order clarified that the BCI’s policy decisions must be made in consultation with the Attorney General and Solicitor General. This directive aims to ensure that any regulatory or administrative actions taken by the BCI align with legal frameworks and government guidelines. The ruling underscores the judiciary’s role in maintaining accountability and transparency in the functioning of legal bodies. The petitioners contended that Mishra’s prolonged tenure violated procedural norms and raised questions about the independence of the BCI. The court’s emphasis on consultation with senior legal officials highlights the importance of inter-agency coordination in shaping legal policies.#supreme_court #bar_council_of_india #manan_kumar_mishra #attorney_general_of_india #solicitor_general_of_india

Supreme Court Questions BCI Chairman's 5-Year Tenure, AG-SG to Monitor Policy Decisions The Supreme Court has imposed strict oversight on the functioning of the Bar Council of India (BCI), mandating that all policy decisions of the organization must involve the Attorney General (AG) and Solicitor General (SG) until a restructuring is completed. The court also declared the tenure of BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra as temporary, effective until new leadership is elected. The court's intervention came amid legal challenges to the validity of notifications issued by the BCI in 2025, which extended the term of Mishra and Vice-Chairman S. Prabhakaran to 2030. These notifications contradicted the BCI's own rules, which limit the tenure of its chairman and vice-chairman to two years. The bench emphasized that the current leadership's extended tenure cannot be considered a permanent arrangement and must be treated as an interim measure. The court's directive follows a series of petitions questioning the legitimacy of the BCI's governance structure. The legal battle intensified after the BCI's involvement in a controversial case involving the 2026 batch of law graduates, where the council initially barred students who had protested against the Chief Justice of India's attendance at a graduation ceremony. Mishra later reversed this decision, leading to further scrutiny of the BCI's authority. The bench highlighted the need to restore the legal electoral framework for state bar councils, which had been disrupted by the extended tenure of the BCI leadership. It emphasized that the current leadership must not remain in office indefinitely and that the newly elected state bar councils must now select representatives for the BCI under Section 4(1)(c) of the Advocates Act.#solicitor_general #supreme_court #bar_council_of_india #attorney_general #manan_kumar_mishra

Supreme Court Restricts BCI Interim President from Policy Decisions The Supreme Court has ruled that the interim president of the Bar Council of India (BCI), Manan Kumar Mishra, cannot make any significant policy decisions until the council’s elections are completed. The court emphasized that Mishra’s authority is limited to routine administrative tasks, and any major policy decisions must involve the Attorney General of India (AG) and Solicitor General (SG), who are permanent members of the BCI. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joyamalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohan, addressed petitions challenging Mishra’s prolonged tenure as interim president and demands for his removal. The court clarified that Mishra’s position is temporary, as the new BCI council has not yet been elected. Justice Bagchi stated that until the elections are held, Mishra remains an interim leader, and his role is restricted to managing day-to-day operations. The court also mandated that any major policy decisions must be deliberated with the AG and SG, ensuring transparency and adherence to legal protocols. In addition to the BCI’s governance, the Supreme Court directed the High Courts to expedite the formation of state bar councils. The court set a timeline for the elections of these councils, requiring them to include at least two female members. The directive mandates that the process for selecting female candidates must be completed within two weeks, followed by the announcement of the new state councils’ formation within a week. The newly formed state councils are then required to elect their own president, vice-president, and other officials within three weeks, along with appointing a representative for the BCI.#solicitor_general #supreme_court #bar_council_of_india #manan_kumar_mishra #attorney_general_of_india

NLSIU cancels convocation for 2026 graduating batch The National Law School of India University (NLSIU) in Bengaluru has canceled its annual convocation for the 2026 graduating batch, citing "unavoidable circumstances." The decision follows widespread opposition from students and alumni against the participation of Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra and Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant in the event. Initially scheduled for September 12, the convocation was abruptly canceled on August 27, with students to be conferred their degrees in absentia after approvals from the university’s governing bodies. The notice, issued by the university administration, stated that despite "collective best efforts," the event could not proceed due to unforeseen challenges. Students were informed they could opt to receive their certificates via courier or collect them on campus, with further details to be shared through a new form. The cancellation came amid heightened tensions over the presence of Mishra and CJI Surya Kant, who had faced significant backlash from the NLSIU community. The opposition to their attendance stemmed from a broader controversy involving the BCI and NALSAR University of Law. Over 700 students and alumni from NLSIU had previously objected to Mishra and CJI Surya Kant attending the university’s convocation, demanding an unconditional apology from the BCI to NALSAR’s student and faculty community. This came after the BCI had temporarily halted and later restored enrollment for NALSAR’s graduating batch following protests over the proposed presence of CJI Surya Kant at their convocation.#surya_kant #bar_council_of_india #manan_kumar_mishra #nlsiu #nalsar_university_of_law

Bombay Bar Association Calls Manan Kumar Mishra's Apology Belated, Says He Must Resign As BCI Chairman The Bombay Bar Association condemned the actions of the Bar Council of India (BCI) chairman, Manan Kumar Mishra, on August 13, 2026, when he issued a directive against NALSAR University students. The association criticized Mishra's subsequent apology on August 15 as insufficient and called for his resignation from the BCI chairmanship. In a letter dated August 18, the association argued that Mishra's apology did not reflect genuine remorse, as he continued to hold his position despite the misconduct. A meeting of the Bombay Bar Association's Standing Committee was held on August 17 and 18, 2026, to review the events from August 13 to 15. The committee described the BCI chairman's August 13 letter as an "abuse" of his authority, noting that it was issued without allowing the NALSAR students an opportunity to respond. The letter, which directed state bar councils to withhold enrollment from the 2026 NALSAR graduates, caused significant harm to their professional prospects. The association emphasized that the BCI chairman's actions were "uncalled for" and violated the principles of due process. While the BCI later reversed its decision and closed proceedings against the students, the Bombay Bar Association praised this move as a "step in the right direction" but stressed that it did not absolve Mishra of responsibility. The association highlighted the importance of the BCI chairman's role as a regulatory body and condemned Mishra's conduct as unbecoming of his position. The students' bar council at NALSAR University also criticized the BCI chairman's letter, accusing him of perpetuating an "anti-national" narrative that dismissed dissent as the work of external actors.#supreme_court #bar_council_of_india #nalsar_university #bombay_bar_association #manan_kumar_mishra

NALSAR Law Students Protest Against Chief Justice's Role in Convocation Amid Dissent Concerns A significant number of students from the 2026 graduating batch of NALSAR University of Law in Hyderabad launched protests against the decision to invite Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as the chief guest at their convocation ceremony. The demonstrations were organized in solidarity with students who had previously protested against the NEET paper leak incident, which took place at Jantar Mantar under the call of the online pressure group known as Cockroach Janta Party. This group gained prominence after Chief Justice Kant reportedly referred to young citizens of the country as "cockroaches" during a legal case involving fake law degree holders. The NALSAR students also expressed frustration over the CJI’s refusal to address allegations of police misconduct during peaceful protests at Jantar Mantar on July 20. The controversy escalated when the Bar Council of India (BCI) issued a directive on August 13 instructing all State Bar Councils to withhold enrollment of students who graduated from NALSAR University in 2026. However, the order was swiftly withdrawn the same day. In response, Chief Justice Kant criticized the BCI’s directive, stating that the students were engaged in a "dialogue with him." The Supreme Court further intervened by prohibiting the university from imposing any punitive measures against the protesting students. This incident has sparked broader discussions about the extent of dissent allowed in leading law institutions in India and the potential repercussions of challenging judicial authority. The situation has also highlighted the delicate balance between institutional authority and the rights of students to express dissent.#bar_council_of_india #cockroach_janta_party #jantar_mantar #nalsar_university #chief_justice_kant

Bar Council of India Grants Conditional Approval for 2026–27 Law College Admissions The Bar Council of India (BCI) has granted conditional approval to eligible law colleges across Maharashtra for the 2026–27 academic session, ensuring continuity in admissions under the Centralised Admission Process (CAP). The decision, announced by Justice Rajendra Menon, co-chairperson of the BCI’s Legal Education Committee, comes amid the extension of the CAP Round-I option-form deadline to August 11. The BCI emphasized that the approval is a one-time measure specific to Maharashtra and does not set a precedent for other states. The conditional approval allows existing law colleges to continue their law courses, approved sections, and student intake, provided they meet certain criteria. Colleges must verify their valid university affiliation and align with the BCI’s existing records. The BCI has mandated that all institutions complete the prescribed approval process on its portal by August 31, 2026. This includes uploading required documents, furnishing prescribed information, and paying applicable fees. The order explicitly warns that failure to comply with the process could result in the withholding, modification, suspension, or withdrawal of the conditional approval. Additionally, the BCI clarified that the approval does not waive or regularize any pending approvals or financial liabilities from previous academic sessions. Colleges already registered on the BCI portal are directed to apply for an extension of their approval, while unregistered institutions must seek registration by emailing the Legal Education Department.#maharashtra #bar_council_of_india #centralised_admission_process #rajendra_menon #legal_education_department

Bar Council Delay Keeps Premier Nagpur Law Colleges Off Admission List Thousands of law aspirants across Maharashtra face uncertainty as several prominent law colleges, including Nagpur University’s Dr Ambedkar School of Law and Dr Ambedkar College at Deekshabhoomi, were excluded from the centralised admission process for the five-year LLB programme. The Bar Council of India (BCI) has yet to grant mandatory approvals, leaving students unable to select some of the state’s most sought-after government and aided law colleges before the Aug 7 deadline. The Directorate of Higher Education (DHE) reported that only 66 colleges offering the five-year integrated LLB programme, with 5,955 seats, and 102 colleges offering the three-year LLB course, with 10,105 seats, were cleared for the first admission round. This contrasts with nearly 20,000 applicants for the five-year course and around 54,000 applicants for the three-year programme, severely limiting options for aspiring law students. Nagpur University officials have requested the state government to allow candidates to revise their preference forms before the second CAP round after additional colleges receive BCI approval, and again before the third round if more institutions are cleared. This measure aims to prevent students from being locked into preferences submitted when several prominent colleges were unavailable. Every law college must obtain annual BCI approval before admitting students. While NU law school principal Ravi Mor could not be contacted, college authorities stated they had met the prescribed requirements. However, the approval process was delayed as universities took longer than expected to issue affiliation certificates.#nagpur_university #bar_council_of_india #directorates_of_higher_education #dr_ambedkar_school_of_law #dr_ambedkar_college_deekshabhoomi

बार काउंसिल ऑफ इंडिया ने आंध्र प्रदेश हाईकोर्ट के जज के खिलाफ कार्रवाई की मांग की बार काउंसिल ऑफ इंडिया (BCI) ने मुख्य न्यायाधीश सूर्य कांत को पत्र लिखकर आंध्र प्रदेश हाईकोर्ट के जस्टिस तरलादा राजशेखर राव के खिलाफ न्यायिक कार्य वापस लेने की मांग की है। यह कदम एक वकील और जज के बीच हुए तीखे विवाद के वीडियो के सोशल मीडिया पर वायरल होने के बाद उठाया गया है। यह घटना एक रिट याचिका की सुनवाई के दौरान हुई, जिसमें याचिकाकर्ता ने अपने खिलाफ जारी लुक आउट सर्कुलर (LOC) और पासपोर्ट जब्त किए जाने की कार्रवाई को चुनौती दी थी। सुनवाई के दौरान जज ने मामले को स्थगित करने के लिए पुराने फैसले का संदर्भ लेने का संकेत दिया, जिसके बाद तनावपूर्ण स्थिति बन गई। वीडियो और रिपोर्टों के अनुसार, जस्टिस राव वकील के व्यवहार से असंतुष्ट दिखे। जज ने वकील की वरिष्ठता और पेशेवर आचरण पर सवाल उठाते हुए पुलिस को बुलाया और मौखिक रूप से वकील को 24 घंटे की हिरासत में लेने का निर्देश दे दिया। जज ने कार्यवाही के दौरान वकील के आचरण को ‘अकर्मण्य’ बताया और अन्य वकीलों से अपने नाम बताने को कहा, ताकि उन्हें आधिकारिक आदेश में गवाह के रूप में शामिल किया जा सके। वकील ने अपनी शारीरिक पीड़ा का हवाला देते हुए हाथ जोड़कर माफी मांगी, लेकिन शुरुआत में कोर्ट ने कड़ा रुख अपनाए रखा। जज ने यहां तक कहा कि यदि वकील आदेश से असंतुष्ट हैं, तो वे बार एसोसिएशन के साथ मिलकर धरना भी दे सकते हैं। वकील को हिरासत में लेने का आदेश आधिकारिक रूप से हस्ताक्षरित नहीं किया गया था। हाईकोर्ट बार एसोसिएशन के तत्काल हस्तक्षेप के बाद जज ने अपना निर्णय बदल दिया और वकील को पुलिस हिरासत में भेजने का निर्देश रद्द कर दिया। पासपोर्ट और एलओसी से जुड़े मुख्य मामले को अब गर्मियों की छुट्टियों के बाद सुनवाई के लिए सूचीबद्ध किया गया है। बार काउंसिल ऑफ इंडिया ने इस घटना पर गहरा ऐतराज जताया है। बीसीआई के अध्यक्ष मनन कुमार मिश्रा ने मुख्य न्यायाधीश को लिखे पत्र में कहा कि इस तरह की घटनाएं वकीलों, विशेषकर युवा वकीलों के मनोबल पर बुरा प्रभाव डालती हैं। परिषद का तर्क है कि इस प्रकार का व...#bar_council_of_india #andhra_pradesh_high_court #suryakant #tara_ladha_raju_rav #lawyer

How to Read a Bare Act Correctly | A Practical Guide for Law Students The Bar Council of India mandates that all aspiring advocates must pass the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to obtain a Certificate of Practice (CoP). For AIBE XXI (21) 2026, candidates are required to use Bare Acts without annotations, commentary, or notes during the exam. This requirement highlights a critical gap in legal education: many law students struggle to interpret Bare Acts effectively, leading to poor performance in exams and courtroom settings. This guide addresses that gap by providing a structured approach to understanding and utilizing Bare Acts. A Bare Act is the unaltered text of a law enacted by Parliament or a State Legislature. It includes the exact statutory language, incorporated amendments, and definitions without any interpretive commentary. In India, courts rely solely on the Bare Act for legal interpretation, making it an essential tool for both academic study and legal practice. For AIBE 2026, candidates must master these texts to answer questions accurately, as the exam tests the precise application of legal provisions. The structure of a Bare Act includes several key components: the Long Title, which states the law’s purpose; the Preamble, which outlines its objectives; the Definitions Section, which clarifies key terms; the Main Body, divided into Parts, Chapters, and Sections; Schedules, which contain procedural forms or lists; and Amendments, which reflect changes to the original law. The Definitions Section is particularly critical, as many legal terms are defined here and referenced throughout the Act. Ignoring this section often leads to confusion and errors in interpretation.#bharatiya_nyaya_sanhita #bar_council_of_india #all_india_bar_examination #bare_act #constitution_of_india