BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra Refuses to Resign Amid NALSAR Controversy

New Delhi: Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra has refused to resign amid growing demands for his removal following the controversy involving NALSAR University of Law.

The controversy began after the BCI directed State Bar Councils not to enrol members of NALSAR's 2026 graduating batch as advocates. The action followed a student campaign opposing the reported invitation to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to attend the university's convocation. The BCI subsequently withdrew the enrolment restriction and later closed the proceedings against the 2026 batch.

The episode attracted criticism from sections of the legal community and prompted fresh calls for Mishra's resignation. The Bombay Bar Association also criticised the BCI's handling of the matter, describing the original action as an "abuse of power."

Mishra, however, has maintained that he will not step down, stressing that he was elected to represent the country's lawyers. Recent reports also indicate that a petition has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking his removal and fresh elections for the BCI chairmanship.

The controversy has also generated questions about the extent of the BCI's authority over law students and the enrolment process. While the BCI exercises supervisory powers over State Bar Councils and has responsibilities relating to legal education, enrolment applications are primarily handled by State Bar Councils under the Advocates Act, 1961.

Mishra had earlier expressed regret over communications issued during the NALSAR episode. Following criticism, the BCI allowed the 2026 graduates to seek enrolment with State Bar Councils and subsequently closed the proceedings against the batch.

The dispute has now expanded beyond the NALSAR episode, with lawyers and BCI members raising broader questions about leadership, accountability and governance within the country's apex statutory body for the legal profession.

BCI Co-Chairman YR Sadashiva Reddy has also demanded Mishra's resignation and called for an inquiry into several allegations. These claims remain matters of dispute and should be treated as allegations unless independently established.

The developments have placed renewed attention on the balance between regulatory authority, institutional accountability and the right of law students and members of the legal profession to express dissent.

Editorial Note: Allegations and criticisms concerning the BCI chairman and the Council should be attributed to the respective individuals or organisations unless established through authoritative findings or judicial proceedings.