P.K. Mishra

Early Life

Justice Prasanth Kumar Mishra was born on 29 August 1964 in Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. He studied BSc. and LLB at Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur and enrolled as an advocate on 4 September 1987.

Career as an Advocate

Justice Mishra began his legal practice at the District Court of Raigarh. He then practised at the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur and Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. His areas of practice were civil, criminal and Writ matters. In January 2005, he was appointed as a Senior Advocate by the Chhattisgarh High Court. 

He was the Chairperson of the Chhattisgarh Bar Council for two years, while also serving on the Rule-Making Committee of the Chhattisgarh High Court. He was also an ex-officio member of the Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur. 

On 26 June 2004, he was appointed as the Additional Advocate General for the state of Chhattisgarh. He served in this position for over three years until 31 August 2007. On 1 September 2007, he was appointed the Advocate General for the state. 

Career as a Judge

Justice Mishra was elevated as a Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court on 10 December 10 2009. In June 2021, He served as the Acting Chief Justice of the Chhattisgarh High Court for four months. Later that year, on 11 October 11, he was appointed the Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and assumed office two days later. 

On 16 May 2023, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended his appointment as Judge to the Supreme Court. In its recommendation, it emphasised equal representation of different High Courts, factoring in the under-representation of Justice Mishra’s parent High Court of Chhattisgarh. 

The Collegium also superseded Justice Pritinker Diwaker, who is three years senior to Justice Mishra and also hails from the Chhattisgarh High Court. The Collegium resolution stated that Justice Mishra’s appointment would be a “value addition” given his knowledge and experience, and recognised Justice Mishra as “a judge with integrity.” 

Justice Mishra assumed the post of Supreme Court Justice on 19 May 2023.

Figure 1 shows that Justice Mishra has authored 80 judgements and has been a part of 155 benches.

Figure 2 shows that Justice Mishra has mainly authored judgements in Criminal Matters (45%). This is followed by Civil (16%), Motor Vehicles (16%), Service (13%), and Property (11%) matters. 

Notable Judgments

In May 2025, in Shanmugam Lakshminarayanan v High Court of Madras, a Division Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Mishra ruled on the limitation period for criminal contempt in a case involving forged orders in the name of a High Court Judge. The judgement, authored by Justice Mishra, held that the stop-clock for calculating the one-year limitation period under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is the date of initiation of the suo moto contempt action, rather than the date when formal notice is issued. 

In Jogeswar Sahoo v The District Judge, Cuttack (2025), Justice Mishra was part of a two-judge bench that held that excess payments made to an employee, in the absence of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part, cannot be recovered by the employer. The Court quashed recovery orders issued years after excess arrears were paid, noting that such recoveries are barred by equity when the overpayment resulted from the employer’s error.

In Hiralal Babulal Soni v State of Maharashtra (2025), a Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai, P.K. Mishra and K.V. Viswanathan set aside a conviction under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 317 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita), which pertains to dishonestly receiving stolen property. Authoring the majority opinion, Justice Mishra noted that the prosecution failed to establish a clear link between the seized property and the alleged fraudulent funds. The Court ruled that mere possession of allegedly stolen property was insufficient to sustain a conviction without proof of theft and knowledge of its illicit origin. 

In Kalyani Rajan v Indraprastha Apollo Hospital (2024), Justice Mishra authored the opinion upholding the dismissal of a medical negligence complaint. He observed that for the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor ( action which “speaks for itself”) to apply, strong incriminating evidence must demonstrate negligence clearly and compellingly. Mere adverse outcomes or circumstances, without substantial supporting material, could not constitute proof of negligence.

In Ved Kumari v Municipal Corporation of Delhi (2023), Justice Mishra, writing for the two-judge Bench, reaffirmed that an Executing Court cannot deem an execution decree inexecutable merely because the decree-holder lost possession of the decretal land to a third party or encroacher. The ruling clarified that the Executing Court is obligated to adjudicate resistance to the delivery of possession. It reinforced that decree-holders cannot be left remediless due to subsequent encroachment.