Bar Council of India (BCI) Co-Chairman and Senior Advocate YR Sadasiva Reddy has demanded the resignation of BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, alleging financial irregularities, non-transparent appointments and misuse of the Council’s powers in the recent NALSAR University controversy.
In a six-page letter dated August 22 addressed to Mishra, Reddy said the BCI is a statutory body constituted under the Advocates Act, 1961, and “not the personal estate of any individual”.
Reddy said his demand followed what he had witnessed during BCI meetings and called on Mishra to resign within 15 days.
“The Bar of this country deserves better than what it is presently receiving from its own Council,” Reddy wrote at the end of the letter.
One of the key allegations in the letter concerns BCI Trust PEARL-First. Reddy alleged that the earlier Bar Council of India Trust was allowed to become inactive before BCI Trust PEARL-First was registered in September 2020.
According to Reddy, trustees were selected by Mishra and around Rs 150 crore belonging to the BCI, including contributions made by advocates, was subsequently transferred to the trust.
He questioned the legal provision under the Advocates Act that permitted the corpus of a statutory regulator to be transferred to such a trust and alleged that BCI members had not been provided with a copy of the Trust Deed.
Reddy further alleged that law colleges seeking approval or renewal from the BCI were asked to make “contributions” ranging from Rs 25 lakh to Rs 1 crore to the trust.
He argued that the Council’s regulatory authority over law colleges should not be used as a means of raising funds.
Reddy also raised allegations concerning appointments within the BCI establishment. He claimed that several employees were personally connected to Mishra, including members of his family, while documents relating to advertisements, selection committee proceedings and comparative merit lists had allegedly not been placed before the Council.
The allegations in Reddy’s letter have not been independently established. He has called for an investigation and a special audit into the issues raised.
The August 13 action against students of NALSAR University of Law has also become a central part of Reddy’s case for Mishra’s resignation.
The controversy began after students at the Hyderabad-based law university opposed a proposal to invite Chief Justice of India Surya Kant as chief guest for their convocation. Around 450 students from different batches backed representations asking the university to reconsider the invitation.
The students’ objections were linked to the CJI’s handling of proceedings concerning allegations of police excesses during the Cockroach Janta Party’s July 20 “Sansad Chalo” protest in Delhi.
On August 13, the BCI directed state bar councils not to enrol graduates from NALSAR’s 2026 batch as advocates until further orders. It also sought details from the university about students allegedly involved in organising the campaign against the CJI.
The decision triggered criticism within and outside the BCI. Several office-bearers questioned whether Mishra had issued the communication without securing the Council’s approval. Reddy was among those who opposed the move.
The enrolment restriction was withdrawn within hours, and proceedings against the students were subsequently closed. Mishra later acknowledged that the initial action had been taken in haste and apologised to law students.
Reddy, however, alleged that the August 13 communication had been issued without placing the relevant material before the Council or obtaining a resolution authorising the action.
He described the episode as a reprisal against students for expressing an opinion and said it had damaged the BCI’s standing.
The Supreme Court had also criticised the BCI’s intervention when the NALSAR matter came before it on August 14.
CJI Surya Kant said students had the right to protest peacefully and questioned the BCI’s involvement in the matter. The bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, directed that no punitive action be taken against NALSAR students or faculty by the BCI or state bar councils over the episode.
The controversy subsequently widened into a campaign demanding Mishra’s resignation. Lawyers and CJP supporters protested outside the BCI headquarters in Delhi on August 20, raising demands concerning the Council’s functioning, lawyer welfare and accountability.
Mishra rejected calls for his resignation a day later, saying he had been elected to the position and represented around 25 lakh lawyers. “I was elected, I won’t step down,” he said.
Reddy’s latest letter marks a significant escalation as the demand for Mishra’s resignation now comes from a serving BCI Co-Chairman.
Apart from seeking Mishra’s resignation within 15 days, Reddy has demanded a special meeting of the Bar Council to consider the allegations and place relevant records before its members.
He has also called for a special audit of the BCI and BCI Trust PEARL-First accounts from the trust’s registration, to be conducted by an independent firm empanelled with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.
Reddy has further sought an immediate halt to contributions, donations or payments from law colleges and universities to the Council or any trust or body connected with it. He has also demanded publication of the complete BCI staff position on the Council’s website.
No public response from Mishra to the specific allegations contained in Reddy’s August 22 letter was available at the time of writing.
