The assertion of the BCI Chairman that the Bar Council is “acutely aware of excesses, lapses and malpractices within certain quarters of the judicial system” but has “chosen silence” is, in itself, contrary to the Bar Council of India Rules and the binding Constitution Bench judgments which mandate that any credible material relating to malpractices must be duly reported, appropriately disclosed, and necessary action ensured. If no complaint has been filed or action initiated despite having material proofs of malpractices, it constitutes gross professional misconduct and a serious dereliction of statutory duty, warranting disciplinary action and removal from the office of Chairman of the Bar Council of India.
New Delhi: Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairman Shri Manan Kumar Mishra has come under sharp criticism after sending a strongly worded letter to Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant concerning certain oral observations made by a judge of the Kerala High Court. What was projected as an institutional protest has now raised serious questions about the conduct and responsibility of the BCI leadership.
In a letter dated January 26, the BCI expressed “serious institutional concern” over remarks made by the High Court judge in connection with State Bar Council elections. However, the language of the letter—particularly its claim that the BCI is “acutely aware of excesses, lapses and malpractices within certain quarters of the judicial system” but has “chosen silence”—has triggered widespread outrage.
In the letter dated January 26, Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra said—
“The Bar Council of India is often acutely aware of excesses, lapses and malpractices within certain quarters of the judicial system. Yet, it has consciously chosen silence only to preserve the dignity, credibility and majesty of the judiciary, and to maintain equilibrium between the Bar and the Bench and to solely protect the institution of judiciary from public disrepute and loss of confidence, however, such restraint should not be mistaken for acquiescence or vulnerability, particularly when elected representative bodies of advocates are subjected to unwarranted attack.”
Legal experts argue that this statement amounts to an admission that the BCI possesses material information about alleged judicial malpractice but has deliberately failed to report it. Critics say such an admission is not institutional restraint but dereliction of duty and an attempt to indirectly threaten the judiciary.
Under Bar Council of India Rules, binding Supreme Court judgments, and Article 51-A of the Constitution, every advocate has a duty to report misconduct within the justice system. Exposing wrongdoing is a constitutional obligation, not a matter of choice. Failure to act on such knowledge, many contend, could amount to professional misconduct and abetment by omission.
The Bar Council of India Rules states;
Rule I – Duty to the Court
“1. An advocate shall, during the presentation of his case and while otherwise acting before a court, conduct himself with dignity and self-respect. He shall not be servile and whenever there is proper ground for serious complaint against a judicial officer, it shall be his right and duty to submit his grievance to proper authorities.”
In R. Muthukrishnan V/s. High Court of Madras, (2019) 16 SCC 407, it is ruled as under;
“It is duty of the lawyer to lodge appropriate complaint to the concerned authorities as observed by this Court in Vinay Chandra Mishra (supra), which right cannot be totally curtailed.
……..Making the Bar too sycophant and fearful which would not be conducive for fair administration of justice. Fair criticism of judgment and its analysis is permissible. Lawyers’ fearlessness in court, independence, uprightness, honesty, equality are the virtues which cannot be sacrificed.
It is the duty of the Bar to protect honest judges and not to ruin their reputation and at the same time to ensure that corrupt judges are not spared.”
Truthful Exposure of Judicial Misconduct Is a Constitutional Duty – Silence Is Not an Option- Silence in the Name of ‘Dignity’ Is Legally Unsustainable
Against this settled legal backdrop, the recent letter issued by BCI Chairman Shri Manan Kumar Mishra assumes disturbing significance. In the said letter, he asserts that the Bar Council of India is “acutely aware of excesses, lapses and malpractices” within the judicial system but has “consciously chosen silence” to preserve the dignity of the judiciary.
This admission directly contradicts binding constitutional principles.
The Constitution Bench decisions make it abundantly clear that silence cannot be justified in the name of protecting institutional dignity. The Supreme Court has explicitly held that even if truthful disclosure may bring temporary disrepute to a particular judge or court, publication in the larger public interest remains lawful and necessary.
The Australian High Court decision in Nationwide News (Pty) Ltd. v. Wills, (1992) 177 CLR 1, cited with approval by the Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy v. Arun Shourie, warned that:
“A silence, however limited, solely in the name of preserving the dignity of the bench, would probably engender resentment, suspicion and contempt much more than it would enhance respect.”
Further, the Allahabad High Court in Rama Surat Singh v. Shiv Kumar Pandey, 1969 SCC OnLine All 226, held that making a bona fide complaint against a dishonest or corrupt judge and malpractices is an act aimed at maintaining the purity of the administration of justice.
The law on the right to expose corruption within the judiciary is neither new nor ambiguous. A Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy v. State of Madras, 1952 SCR 425, laid down the foundational principle that publication of truth regarding corruption or misconduct of a Judge does not amount to contempt of court. On the contrary, such disclosure is in the larger public interest. The Court categorically held:
“If the allegations were true, obviously it would be to the benefit of the public to bring these matters into light.”
The same principle has been consistently reaffirmed in later judgments, including Subramanian Swamy v. Arun Shourie, (2014) 12 SCC 344 and Indirect Tax Practitioners’ Association v. R.K. Jain, (2010) 8 SCC 281, which recognize that truthful criticism and exposure of wrongdoing and exposing corruption is not merely a right but a constitutional obligation under Article 51A of the Constitution. Citizens and advocates alike are duty-bound to bring misconduct to light, particularly when it occurs at higher levels of governance.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Aniruddha Bahal v. State, (2010) 172 DLT 268, articulated this duty in powerful constitutional terms. The Court observed:
“7… I consider that a country cannot be defended only by taking a gun and going to border at the time of war. The country is to be defended day in and day out by being vigil and alert to the needs and requirements of the country and to bring forth the corruption at higher level. The duty under Article 51A(H) is to develop a spirit of inquiry and reforms. The duty of a citizen under Article 51A(j) is to strive towards excellence in all spheres so that the national constantly rises to higher level of endeavour and achievements I consider that it is built-in duties that every citizen must strive for a corruption free society and must expose the corruption whenever it comes to his or her knowledge and try to remove corruption at all levels more so at higher levels of management of the State. 9. I consider that it is a fundamental right of citizens of this country to have a clean incorruptible judiciary, legislature, executive and other organs and in order to achieve this fundamental right, every citizen has a corresponding duty to expose corruption wherever he finds it, whenever he finds it and to expose it if possible with proof so that even if the State machinery does not act and does not take action against the corrupt people when time comes people are able to take action either by rejecting them as their representatives or by compelling the State by public awareness to take action against them.-”
BCI Chairman’s Stand Contrary to Law and Duty
In light of these binding precedents, the position adopted by Shri Manan Kumar Mishra is legally indefensible. If, as he claims, the Bar Council was genuinely aware of malpractices within the judiciary, it was constitutionally and professionally bound to act upon such knowledge.
Choosing not to file complaints, not to report misconduct, and not to bring material before competent authorities—while later using such alleged information as a rhetorical weapon—amounts to a clear failure of statutory duty.
Under the Advocates Act, Bar Council Rules, and Supreme Court directions, the BCI is not merely a representative body but a regulatory authority entrusted with safeguarding the integrity of the legal system. Deliberate inaction in the face of alleged wrongdoing is not “institutional restraint”; it is dereliction of responsibility.
Unfitness of Shri Manan Kumar Mishra to Hold Office of Chairman of BCI
The unavoidable conclusion is stark. Either Shri Manan Kumar Mishra lacked knowledge of these settled legal principles—in which case he is unfit to lead the apex regulatory body of the legal profession—or he knowingly acted contrary to law by suppressing information about alleged misconduct.
In both scenarios, his conduct raises serious questions about his suitability to continue in any office of the Bar Council of India, particularly that of its Chairman.
A statutory authority cannot claim to protect the majesty of the judiciary by ignoring corruption. The true dignity of the justice system is preserved not by silence, but by transparency, accountability, and fearless adherence to the rule of law.
Several members of the Bar have now demanded disciplinary action against Chairman Mishra and those who supported the letter, arguing that a person who admits to suppressing information about alleged malpractices cannot continue to hold a statutory regulatory office.
“This is not the language of respectful institutional dialogue—it is pressure tactics against the judiciary,” remarked a senior advocate.
As of now, there has been no official response from the Chief Justice’s office. However, the controversy has ignited a serious debate on accountability within the Bar Council of India and whether its leadership has acted in conformity with its constitutional and statutory duties.
What began as a protest letter has now turned into a larger question of transparency, ethics, and responsibility at the highest levels of the legal profession.
