Who Is Manan Kumar Mishra? BCI Chairman at Centre of NALSAR Row and CJP's 'Isteefa Do' Call

Bar Council of India Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra has come into the spotlight following the controversy surrounding NALSAR University of Law and a student campaign over the proposed participation of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant at the university’s convocation. The controversy intensified after the Bar Council of India initially moved against the 2026 graduating batch of NALSAR, prompting criticism from students and sections of the legal community. The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) subsequently targeted Mishra, with its founder Abhijeet Dipke calling for his resignation.

Mishra is a senior advocate and has been associated with the Bar Council of India’s leadership for several years. He is also a BJP-nominated Rajya Sabha member from Bihar, giving him a prominent role in both the legal and political spheres. The NALSAR dispute began when a section of students reportedly objected to the invitation extended to CJI Surya Kant for the university’s convocation. The students’ concerns were linked to issues surrounding judicial and police action during recent student protests.

The matter reached the BCI, which on August 13 directed State Bar Councils to defer the enrolment of NALSAR’s 2026 graduates. The move immediately attracted attention because enrolment with a State Bar Council is essential for law graduates who wish to begin practising as advocates. The BCI subsequently reconsidered the decision. Mishra said the vast majority of the graduating students had not been involved in any alleged disturbance and should not face consequences because of the actions of others.

The council first withdrew the blanket restriction on enrolment and later announced that proceedings against the 2026 batch had been closed altogether. The developments triggered a political reaction from the CJP. Abhijeet Dipke questioned Mishra’s continuation as BCI chairman and raised the slogan “Isteefa do”, or “resign”. The group criticised the initial BCI action as disproportionate, particularly because it affected an entire graduating batch.

The controversy has also raised questions about the balance between institutional authority and the right of students to express dissent. Supporters of the BCI’s intervention have argued that respect for constitutional offices and institutions is important, while critics have questioned whether a regulatory body should take action against an entire group over the actions or views of a section of its members.

Mishra’s background makes the controversy particularly significant. As chairman of the BCI, he occupies one of the most influential positions in India’s legal profession. The council plays a central role in regulating advocates and overseeing standards relating to legal education. His political role has added another layer to the debate. Mishra represents Bihar in the Rajya Sabha as a BJP-nominated member, meaning his statements and decisions often attract attention beyond the legal fraternity.

The NALSAR episode has therefore put the BCI chairman at the centre of a wider discussion involving student activism, professional regulation, judicial institutions and political criticism. For the NALSAR graduates, the immediate uncertainty has now been resolved after the BCI closed the proceedings. But for Mishra, the episode has generated fresh scrutiny over the way the country’s top legal regulatory body exercises its authority.

The controversy is likely to remain relevant because it raises a broader question: how should institutions respond when students, particularly future lawyers, publicly disagree with decisions involving senior constitutional authorities? The BCI has backed away from action against the NALSAR batch. The resignation demand from CJP, however, has added a new political dimension to an issue that began inside a law university and quickly developed into a national debate.