One can pardon BCI for notifying late about the mode of examinations in June 2020 for academic session 2019-20 because all were not knowing the consequences of the first wave of corona pandemic. For academic session 2020-21, the BCI started at a good note in November 2020 by allowing online examination.
But, when the second wave hit and the academic session 2020-21 was going on, why did the BCI not issue guidelines for dealing with ensuing April 2021 examinations?
The admins of NLUs are most obedient servants of the BCI as they act like the Principals of self financing colleges. But, the law colleges affiliated to traditional universities have guts to fight against the arbitrary attitude of the BCI. It was the Dean Law of a traditional university (Delhi University Prof. Vandana) who raised the banner of revolt. This is a good step that now the BCI has made a committe to suggest mode of evaluation.
Did BCI not learn from its own past experience of 2019-20 session?
What are the powers or functions of the BCI in guiding the law colleges for the conduct of examinations and evaluation?
Who is at fault?
Law colleges? UGC? Students?
Who? The victims ask India today.

I think the originator of threat wants to say- has the BCI faltered in "not" declaring the mode of law exams well in time?
The answer is: this is not the job of BCI. This is the domain of UGC.

And I have a doubt, do we have to clear the BAR exam and get a membership even if we opt to work in a corporate law firm with exclusively transactional work?

This thread is about the non-interventionist attitude of BCI in not issuing guidelines on holding of LLB internal assessment sessionals, end semester examinations and promotion policies for intermediate semesters of LLB classes during the second wave of Corona in April 2021.
BCI has no powers for all this.