High Court Stays Manan Kumar Mishra's Order Appointing Non-Elected Advocate As Chairman Of Kerala Bar Council
The High Court has ordered the Advocate General of the State to act as Chairman of Bar Council till meeting of the newly elected members.
The Kerala High Court has stayed a decision of Manan Kumar Mishra, the Chairman of the Bar Council of India (BCI), appointing Advocate Ajith TS as the Chairman and constituting a limited interim authority, pending decision on the issue of co-option of women members before the Supreme Court.
A Writ Petition was filed in person by Advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy, an elected member of the Bar Council of Kerala, challenging the post-election interference of the Bar Council of India and its Chairman in the functioning of the Bar Council of Kerala after the XIII Bar Council election results were published in the Kerala Gazette.
The Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held, "It is a different thing that Committees have not been constituted and hence an interim arrangement has to be made. However, that does not prima facie, confer any authority on the BCI or Chairman of BCI, to include a non-elected member as part of any committee, after the results were published and the tenure of those elected persons commenced. Such an inclusion of a non-elected member, prima facie, infringes the very essence of the democratic scheme of the Advocates Act, 1961".
The Petition also raises allegations concerning the establishment of an Advocates Academy, contending that funds of the Bar Council of Kerala were disbursed towards it during the extended tenure of the previous Council. The Court heard the case along with another Writ Petition filed by one Prasad Chandran and another,
The Court also ordered, "As this Court is prima facie satisfied that impugned order was issued without application of mind and is against scheme of the Advocates Act, 1961, there will be a stay of operation of Ext.P6 order dated 30.06.2026, pending disposal of these writ petitions. Needless to mention, the Advocate General, who is the ex officio member of the Bar Council, shall act as the Chairman of the Enrolment Committee and shall be an authorized signatory along with the Secretary of the Bar Council till the first meeting of the Bar Council is convened".
The central contention of the petitioner is that once the list of elected members of the XIII Bar Council of Kerala was notified on 16.06.2026, the newly elected Council stood constituted by operation of law, and neither the Bar Council of India nor its Chairman could create an interim authority to discharge the statutory functions of the State Bar Council.
The foundation of the challenge rests on the scheme of the Advocates Act, 1961, particularly Sections 8, 8A, 48B and 58. The plea asserts: “Section 8A empowers the Bar Council of India to constitute a Special Committee only where an election to a State Bar Council is not held before the expiry of the term of the outgoing Council, and such Special Committee, being a creature of Section 8A, can have no existence or role after a new Council has, in law, come into being upon publication of the election results.”
Alleging that despite concerns over governance and finances in the previous Council, “the Bar Council of India, with no authority of any statute, handpicked certain members and decided on the office bearers of the Bar Council of Kerala and its executive and Enrolment committees in a blatant and gross violation of law and the democratic foundation of the Council itself.”
In a representation annexed to the plea, the establishment of an Advocates Academy has also been brought into notice, with it being stated: “The documents that I have now obtained show a total disbursal of over Rs. 2.5 crores between 31 May 2025 and 2 March 2026 for the Advocates Academy from the funds of the Bar Council of Kerala. I am yet to get the tender documents and the contracts signed up for the same, but there is nothing to justify these acts of the XII Bar Council which did not deem it fit to act when there were specific funds granted for the academy and the screeching hurry to form the ‘advocate academy’ soon thereafter and even more hurry in construction of a building and disbursing the funds of the Bar Council of Kerala”.
The representation further alleges that a trust was formed in violation of statute: “… a Trust was formed in violation of the Statute and the Trustees are to continue for the next 10 years. In short, the Advocates Academy, which is built on land leased to the BCK with the funds of the BCK, would be run by Trustees who are not members of the BCK.”
XIII Bar Council And BCI Chairman’s Authority
The plea says elections to the Bar Council of Kerala were conducted in April 2026, and the list of 23 elected candidates was published in the Kerala Gazette on 16.06.2026 under Rule 33 of the Bar Council of Kerala Rules, 1979.
Despite the Gazette notification, the first meeting of the newly elected Council was allegedly not convened under Rule 1 of Chapter III of the Bar Council of Kerala Rules, 1979. According to the plea, this has prevented the elected body from assuming full charge of statutory functions.
It is also alleged that the continued interim arrangement has affected the functioning of the Kerala Advocates Welfare Fund, since the absence of nominations from the elected Council has impacted quorum for the Trust Committee.
The plea raises a direct challenge to the authority of the BCI Chairman to issue unilateral orders for the State Bar Council. It argues that the Bar Council of India acts as a statutory body, and its Chairman cannot be treated as legally interchangeable with the Council itself.
The plea says: “It is humbly submitted that the Chairman has no power whatsoever under the Statute to pass any such orders as the Bar Council of India acts through its Council and not through individual orders of the Chairman.”
On Section 48B of the Advocates Act, the plea asserts that even the power to issue directions to a State Bar Council vests in the Bar Council of India as a body, not in the Chairman acting individually.
The plea states: “Section 48B of the Advocates Act, 1961 is the only provision under which any direction can at all be issued to a State Bar Council, and even that power is conferred upon the Bar Council of India as a statutory body, and not upon its Chairman acting in his individual capacity. The Bar Council of India and its Chairman are separate and distinct legal persons, and the power of the former cannot be exercised unilaterally by the latter.”
It further adds: “Bar Council of India and its Chairman are two distinct persons and cannot be used interchangeably even if the Chairman has continued to be the Chairman for over a decade. The idea of Bar Council of India and its Chairman being one and the same is a ‘perception’ that has no statutory backing.”
Statutory Route For Transitional Difficulty
The plea also relies on Section 58 of the Advocates Act to argue that any genuine difficulty in the discharge of admission or enrolment functions by a constituted State Bar Council is already addressed by statute. According to the plea, such functions are to be performed by the High Court in accordance with the Act, not by an extra-statutory body created through an individual order of the BCI Chairman.
The plea asserts: “Section 58 of the Advocates Act, 1961 provides a complete and self-contained statutory mechanism for the precise contingency projected by Respondents 1 and 2, namely, that where a State Bar Council is unable to perform its functions relating to the admission and enrolment of Advocates, such functions shall be performed by the High Court in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and not by any ad-hoc or extra-statutory committee created at the discretion of the Chairman, Bar Council of India.”
The representation attached to the plea similarly says: “The BCI has repeatedly used ‘transitional phase’ but failed to check the provisions of the Advocates Act. Sec.58 of the Advocates Act states in clear terms that if a State Bar Council which is constituted is unable to perform its functions, the function related to admission and enrolment of advocates shall be performed by the High Court in accordance with the provisions of the Advocates Act.”
Former Chairman Ajith T.S. And Conflict of Interest
A major part of the challenge concerns the inclusion of Ajith T.S., described in the plea as the former Chairman of the XII Bar Council of Kerala and not an elected member of the XIII Bar Council, in the interim authority.
The plea alleges that his inclusion creates an untenable conflict of interest because the previous administration is itself the subject of financial allegations concerning the Advocates Academy and an e-Governance project.
The plea alleges: “The inclusion of the 5th Respondent, who demitted office as Chairman of the XII Bar Council of Kerala only upon the constitution of the XIII Bar Council of Kerala, and whose tenure as such Chairman is the subject matter of serious, documented allegations concerning disbursal of over Rs.2.5 crores towards an "Advocates Academy" and about Rs.1.5 crores towards a non-functional "e-Governance Project" in the very authority now entrusted with enrolment, welfare fund disbursement and banking operations of the Bar Council of Kerala, creates a direct and untenable conflict of interest, defeats institutional accountability, and is contrary to public interest.”
The plea further contends that if enrolment, welfare fund disbursement and banking functions continue under the challenged interim arrangement, every consequential act may become vulnerable to challenge on the ground that the body performing those functions was not lawfully constituted.
The plea states: “If this state of affairs is permitted to continue, every advocate enrolled, every welfare claim disbursed, and every banking transaction undertaken pursuant to Exhibit P11 would remain open to challenge on the ground that the body undertaking the same was not lawfully constituted, causing grave and irreversible prejudice to hundreds of stakeholders, including candidates awaiting enrolment and members of the Bar Council's Welfare Fund.”
It is further alleged that Ajith T.S. was never a duly elected Chairman of the Bar Council of Kerala, and that even assuming the earlier extensions were valid, his term came to an end once the XIII Bar Council was notified on 16.06.2026.
The plea adds: “The Respondent No.5 was never a duly elected ‘chairman’ of the Bar Council of Kerala. He was hand picked as a Chairman after the tenure of the member as prescribed by the Advocates Act came to an end. Therefore, the Respondent No.5 was never a chairman of the Bar Council of Kerala. Even assuming all the extensions granted were ‘legal’, the term of the 5th Respondent as a Chairman of the Bar Council of Kerala came to an end on the publication of the XIII Bar Council on 16.06.2026.”
The plea therefore seeks restraint against Ajith T.S. holding himself out as Chairman in enrolment-related functions or in connection with the Advocates Academy.
The plea states: “Holding out the 5th Respondent as a Chairman of the Bar Council in blatant violation of Advocates Act would forever act as a ‘black mark’ on the Judicial History of Kerala and the Petitioner believes that this Hon’ble Court will intervene to ensure that the 5th Respondent is restrained from holding himself out as a ‘Chairman of the Bar Council of Kerala’ in the upcoming enrolment function or the Function of the Advocates Academy to be held on 8th of August 2026 as it would be a blot on all advocates in the State of Kerala.”
Financial Irregularities Alleged
The plea links the challenge to the interim arrangement with wider allegations about financial dealings during the previous Council’s extended tenure. It alleges that funds were disbursed towards the Advocates Academy and an e-Governance project, and says those matters require scrutiny by the elected XIII Bar Council rather than persons connected with the earlier administration.
The plea alleges: “During this extended tenure several questionable financial transactions have taken place, including disbursal of over Rs.2.5 crores between 31.05.2025 and 02.03.2026 towards a project styled "Advocates Academy" which has been constituted in blatant violation of the Kerala Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1980 and a disbursal of about Rs.1.5 crores towards an "e-Governance Project" of the Bar Council of Kerala which did not meet the contractual milestones.”
It adds: “These are matters requiring urgent scrutiny by the duly elected XIII Bar Council of Kerala, and not by persons connected with the very administration under whom such expenditure is stated to have occurred.”
The plea also raises concerns over alleged expenditure on an e-Governance project. The annexed representation says: “In addition to the funds disbursed towards ‘Advocates Academy’, there is a disbursement of about 1.5 crores for a e-governance project.”
It further alleges: “What is sad is that this e-governance project is not ‘functional’ and nobody has questioned the same. Disbursements were made without the milestones being achieved as Mobile App was one of the milestones and none of the advocates are even aware of anything like that of the Bar Council of Kerala.”
The plea also raises an issue regarding welfare fund subscription and administration. It says failure to convene the first meeting of the XIII Bar Council has affected the Advocates Welfare Fund, and alleges that the demand for subscription could result in over-subscription.
The plea says: “The direct impact on not convening the 1st meeting of the XIII Bar Council has affected the administration of the Advocates Welfare Fund as the meeting of the committee could not be called for lack of Quorum because the duly elected members of the Bar Council has not yet been nominated.”
It further alleges that the demand for excessive subscription could result in over-subscription “anywhere between Rs. 50 lakhs and Rs. 2 crores across the Bar.”
Earlier Proceedings And Alleged Suppression
The plea also refers to an earlier writ petition before the Kerala High Court and alleges that material facts were not placed before the Court at that stage. According to the plea, the Court was presented with a dilemma that would not have arisen if the Gazette notification and the subsequent interim arrangements had been fully placed before it.
The plea alleges: “This Hon’ble Court pointed out to a dilemma which would not have existed if material facts were disclosed that the XIII Bar Council of Kerala already stands constituted by operation of law with effect from 16.06.2026, and the only impediment is the illegal interim arrangement created by Respondents 1, 2, 3 & 5.”
Reliefs Sought
The plea seeks quashing of the BCI Chairman’s interim orders as contrary to the Advocates Act. It also seeks a direction to the Secretary of the Bar Council of Kerala to convene the first meeting of the XIII Bar Council and allow the elected members to assume full charge.
The plea seeks a writ of mandamus: “to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 3rd Respondent to forthwith convene the first meeting of the XIII Bar Council of Kerala in terms of Rule 1 of Chapter III of the Bar Council of Kerala Rules, 1979, and to enable the duly elected members to assume full charge of the affairs of the Bar Council of Kerala without any further delay.”
It also seeks a declaration that the orders were issued without authority of law, since the power under Section 48B vests in the Bar Council of India as a statutory body and not in its Chairman acting individually.
The plea further seeks a declaration: “to declare that the XIII Bar Council of Kerala stands validly and fully constituted with effect from 16.06.2026, the date of publication of Exhibit P1, and that neither the 1st nor the 2nd Respondent has any power thereafter to constitute any interim body, howsoever styled, to discharge the statutory functions of the Bar Council of Kerala.”
Pending disposal, the plea seeks a stay of the 30.06.2026 order to the extent it includes Ajith T.S. in the interim authority, and also seeks restraint against unauthorised disbursal of Bar Council funds.
The interim prayers include: “Restrain the Respondent No.3 from authorising any disbursals of money from the any accounts of the Bar Council of Kerala without the approval of the XIII Bar Council in accordance with law.”
It also seeks: “Restrain the Respondent No.5 from holding himself out and participating in any function / meeting as the Chairman, Bar Council of Kerala after 16.06.2026.”
Cause Title: Yeshwanth Shenoy v. Bar Council of India (WP(C) 26232 of 2026)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Yeshwanth Shenoy and Anison M.R
Respondents: Advocates Rajit, P.Ramakrishnan, Laya Mary Joseph and Sreekumar Chelur
