Manoj Misra

Early Life and Education

Justice Manoj Misra was born on 2 June 1965. He graduated with a law degree from the University of Allahabad in 1988 and enrolled as an advocate on 12 December of the same year. 

Career as an Advocate

As an advocate, Justice Mistra primarily practiced in civil, criminal, revenue and constitutional matters at the Allahabad High Court. 

Career as a Judge

After 23 years at the Allahabad High Court, he was appointed as an Additional Judge of that Court on 21 November 2011. Two years later, on 6 August 2013, he was appointed as a Permanent Judge. On 13 December 2022, Justice Misra’s name was recommended as a Judge of the Supreme Court along with four other judges under the Collegium led by former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud. 

He assumed office on 6 February 2023. 

As of 11 June 2025, he is among the 25 judges who have declared their assets on the Supreme Court website. 

Figure 1 indicates that Justice Misra has authored 35 judgements, and has been a part of 128 benches.

Figure 2 indicates that Justice Misra has mainly authored judgements in Criminal Matters (27%). This is followed by Property, Service and Tenancy matters. 

Notable Judgments

In Tej Prakash Pathak v Rajasthan High Court (2024), Justice Misra authored the unanimous opinion in a five-judge Constitution Bench which held that the eligibility criteria in a recruitment process cannot be changed after an advertisement has been issued. Additionally, he held that if the relevant rules permit such changes, then they must not violate the non-arbitrariness requirement under Article 14 of the Constitution. 

In Indra Bai v Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2023), Justice Misra authored a judgement which held that Section 2(1)(l) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923 was not limited to cases of physical disability, but also includes cases of functional disability. This would allow a larger section of workers to seek compensation. 

In State of Uttar Pradesh v Ehsan (2023), Justice Misra held that the Supreme Court, despite its original writ jurisdiction under Article 32, should relegate a case to an existing alternative remedy when compelling reasons warrant it. These include cases where complex factual disputes persist between the parties. 

During his tenure at the High Court at Allahabad, in Gajendra Singh Yadav v State of Uttar Pradesh (2021), a two-judge bench led by Justice Misra held that the exercise of statutory powers by a temple trust to enhance access to the temple for those suffering from disabilities would lie beyond the remit of judicial review.

In Arun Mishra v High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (2021), a two-judge bench led by Justice Misra held that the allocation of cases to particular judges at the High Court is the prerogative of the Chief Justice as the master of the roster. They cannot be circumscribed by the writ jurisdiction of the Court.