SC plea seeks removal of Manan Mishra after he refuses to quit over NALSAR row

A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking the removal of senior advocate Manan Mishra from his position as Chairman of the Bar Council of India (BCI), after he reportedly refused to step down amid a controversy involving the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR) University, Hyderabad.

The petition, filed by a lawyer, argues that Mishra's continued tenure in the post is untenable given the ongoing dispute, which has raised questions about the independence and integrity of the legal education system. The plea urges the court to direct his removal, asserting that his actions have brought disrepute to the legal fraternity.

According to reports, the NALSAR row pertains to allegations of irregularities in the appointment of the university's vice-chancellor, with Mishra's name being dragged into the controversy. Mishra, however, has denied any wrongdoing and has refused to resign, maintaining that he has acted in accordance with the law and due process.

The Supreme Court has not yet issued a formal notice on the plea, and it is expected to be heard in the coming weeks. Legal experts note that such petitions, while rare, are not unprecedented, and the court will likely examine the maintainability of the plea before deciding on its merits.

This development comes at a time when the BCI, the statutory body that regulates legal education in India, has been under scrutiny for its functioning. The NALSAR controversy has intensified calls for reforms in the appointment processes for key academic posts in national law universities.

Mishra, who has been the BCI Chairman since 2016, has faced previous controversies but has managed to retain his position. His refusal to step down has drawn criticism from some quarters, who argue that it is inappropriate for him to continue while the matter is sub judice.

Observers point out that the Supreme Court's intervention, if any, could set a precedent for accountability in statutory bodies. The case also highlights the broader issue of transparency in the management of premier educational institutions.

As the legal battle unfolds, stakeholders in the legal education sector are watching closely. The outcome of this plea could have significant implications for the governance of BCI and NALSAR, as well as for the credibility of India's legal education framework.

The petitioner has requested an urgent hearing, but no date has been fixed yet. Until the court takes a call, Mishra remains in office, and the NALSAR row continues to simmer, leaving many questions unanswered about the future of legal education governance in the country.