SC Questions Manan Kumar Mishra's Continuation As Bar Council Chairman Days After NALSAR-CJI Invitation Row

Days after criticism over the NALSAR row, Bar Council of India chairman Manan Kumar Mishra's continuation in the post despite the expiry of a five-year term was put to question by the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

The top court put the apex law body's functioning and every policy decision under the watch of the Attorney General (AG) for India and the Solicitor General (SG) of India. The bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, justices Joymala Bagchi and V Mohanna clarified that Mishra's continuation to the top post of the apex advocate's body can not be treated as an arrangement that extends up to 2030.

The bench observed that prima facie, Mishra's position is only a 'pro tem' continuation till the time the BCI is reconstituted and elects its office-bearers.

The Supreme Court's strict observation was made while hearing a batch of petitions concerning elections to state bar councils. During the hearing, a fresh challenge came up over Mishra's continuance and the validity of a 2025 notification that stretched it up to 2030, along with the tenure of vice-chairman.

ALSO READ: Supreme Court Ends Suo Motu Case Proceedings Over NCERT Class 8 Textbooks 'Corruption In Judiciary' Content

NALSAR row

A few days back, Mishra was pulled up by the top court after he directed the state bars not to enrol students of NALSAR University of Law's 2026 batch over their opposition to an invitation to the CJI for convocation.

Shortly thereafter, the direction was withdrawn. Subsequently, Mishra apologised to the students, but the damage was already done.

Mishra's conduct was questioned as he was accused of acting beyond his powers by intervening in the state bar issues.

ALSO READ: SC Agrees To Hear Centre's Plea Challenging March Verdict On OBC Creamy Layer Status; What's The Case?

Not concerned over individual but institutional functioning

The CJI-led bench on Tuesday said that its immediate concern was not any individual's conduct but the institutional functioning of the BCI. The bench emphasised the need for restoring the statutory electoral scheme after state bar council elections were held pursuant to the court’s directions.