Manan Mishra also addressed the recent controversy involving students of NALSAR University of Law. NEW DELHI: Bar Council of India (BCI) chairman and Rajya Sabha member Manan Kumar Mishra rejected demands for his resignation, saying he holds the position through an election and represents around 25 lakh lawyers across the country.

Mishra made the remarks a day after a group of lawyers from different Bar Associations in Delhi staged a protest outside the BCI office in New Delhi. The protesters raised several concerns, including Mishra's long tenure, the lack of welfare measures for advocates and the proposed increase in the enrolment fee for lawyers."

I have served as the chairman of the Bar Council of India for 12 to 14 years because I was elected. Manan Mishra represents 25 lakh lawyers; he will not step down simply," Mishra said, responding to the protest.

He further said: " I am an elected representative. I was neither selected nor nominated to the Bar Council of India.

It is a statutory body established under the Advocates Act." The lawyers demanding his resignation also sought the implementation of an Advocate Protection Act and questioned the proposed increase in registration fees at State Bar Councils.

Supreme Court petition challenges Mishra's tenureAmid the controversy, a petition has also been filed in the Supreme Court challenging Mishra's continuation as BCI chairman. The petitioner has relied on Rule 12(2) of the BCI Rules, which provides for a two-year tenure for the chairman and vice-chairman, or until they cease to be members, whichever is earlier.

The plea has also challenged an April 21, 2025 Gazette notification that allegedly extended Mishra's tenure until 2030. It has asked the Supreme Court to quash the notification and direct the BCI to withdraw or rescind it.

According to the petition, Mishra first became BCI chairman in 2012. Although he briefly left the post in 2014, he returned as chairman in November that year and has remained in the position since then.

The petitioner has claimed that his re-election in March 2025 was his seventh consecutive term. The plea has argued that the absence of a cumulative limit on repeated re-election allows the office to remain concentrated in one individual for an extended period."

Although Rule 12(2) prescribes a two-year tenure, no meaningful restriction exists upon repeated re-election. Consequently, the office has remained with the same individual for nearly twelve years.