https://vaquill.com/personas/Vaquill Blog2024-11-02T00:00:00.000Zhttps://github.com/jpmonette/feedVaquill Bloghttps://vaquill.com/img/logo/logo_svg.svg<![CDATA[Justice KS PUTTASWAMY Passes Away - The Man behind the Privacy revolution in India]]>https://vaquill.com/personas/justice-puttaswamy/2024-11-02T00:00:00.000ZFormer Karnataka High Court judge Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, known for his landmark judgment of ‘Right to privacy’ passes away at the age of 98 in his Bangalore residence.
He was born on February 8, 1926 in Kolar district in Karnataka. He began his career in the legal field as an advocate in 1952 and later served as an Additional Government Advocate in the high court.
He became Judge of Karnataka High court and started his judicial career in 1977. He retired from his role of judge in 1986 and was appointed as the Vice chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore bench and continued with various roles like Chairman of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative tribunal and chairman of the Andhra Pradesh Commission for Backward Classes.
He is known for challenging the Constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Scheme by filing a petition before the Supreme court in 2012. The Aadhaar Scheme was introduced by the then UPA government.
By this scheme, every Indian citizen would get a 12 digit unique identity but when the Aadhaar card was issued for the first time in 2010, it was done by an executive order not with any legislative backing. To get such a card, a citizen must submit their biometric data which includes fingerprint, retina scan and then a card is issued, the responsibility of storing the data is with UIDAI.
After some time, the government made the use of such cards mandatory for the geeting benefits of various government welfare schemes which includes Mid day meal, MGNREGA. Justice K.S.Puttaswamy challenged such rights before the supreme court where he raised concerns like
Whether the government has put any adequate safeguard in order to protect this information from any possible violation.
He asked that the government cannot limit the right to get benefits of such schemes which are itself a fundamental right
On August 11th, 2015, a bench composed of 3 judges - Justice Chelameswar, Bobde and C. Nagappan passed an order that a bench of an appropriate strength should decide whether we have fundamental right to privacy or not.
After passing this order, the petition was referred to 5 judge bench and then to a 9 judge bench. The nine judge bench gave its judgment on 24th August 2017.
A Nine judge bench was constituted in this case because the Attorney General of India had then argued that because larger benches of the court in M.P.Sharma consisting of 8 judge bench and Kharak Singh consisting of 6 judge bench had already refused to accept right to privacy as a part of fundamental rights. Therefore, the case was referred to a nine judge bench to overrule the previous one.
The nine bench judges unanimously delivered a judgment of 547 pages in which they recognised the fundamental right to privacy of every citizen within the meaning of Article 21 which is guaranteed by the Constitution of India. In this case the earlier decision of M.P. Sharma v Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi and Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh was overruled where the right to privacy was not recognised.
But these cases highlighted the ongoing tension between the state power’s and individual rights and later on this tension was kept in silence by the historic judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) v. Union of India.
The nine judges observed multiple opinions in respect with the right to privacy. Chandrachud J., observed the importance of privacy in the digital economy and the need of the data protection law in this ever growing digital economy. Chelameswar J., observed that right to privacy consist of three facets which are -
advertisement
Repose - Freedom from unwarranted stimuli
Sanctuary- Protection from intrusive Observation
Intimate decision - Autonomy or freedom to male personal life decisions
The above three points were also observed by Justice Nariman. However, all these are only observations and do not have any binding force. Only the order which recognised the right to privacy as a fundamental right is binding in nature for the subsequent cases because it was sign by all the nine judges in the bench.
Generally, if any fundamental right is violated then the court looks upon the reasonableness of such action. Whether such an act was reasonable on the part of another person or he had any specific interest or reason which extends to violating the right of some other person.
In this case also, the court observed that the requirement of reasonableness is necessary in order to determine whether there is violation of the fundamental right of privacy or not.the action must have some legality, a legitimate goal to be achieved and there should be some connection between the action and the goal it wants to be achieved (rational nexus).
Court also observed that there are different degree of reasonableness which is required in the violation of the fundamental right like-
advertisement
Violation of Privacy under Article 14 - it will bring the state action under the test of ‘reasonableness’
Violation of Privacy under Article 19 - it will bring the state action under the test of ‘specified restrictions like public order, morality’
Violation of Privacy under Article 21 - it will bring the state action under the test of ‘just, fair, reasonableness;
If the action violets more than one fundamental right at the same like for example state action of Phone Tapping led to violation freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and personal liberty under article 21, then in such case, the states action must be justified in both restriction which is given under article 19 and 21 which is the specific restrictions like public order under Article 19(2) and just, fair and reasonableness under article 21.
What was the role of K.S. Puttaswamy in Aadhaar case?
K.S. Puttaswamy was the retired Karnataka High court judge who filed a petition in the Supreme court related to Aadhaar case and contended the possible violation of privacy rights of the citizens because of such cards.
What was the Aadhaar case about?
The Aadhaar case also known as K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, involved a challenge to the newly made Aadhaar act which requires fingerprint and retinas of people in order to generate a card on his or her name. Puttaswamy in this case argued that such acts on the part of the state lacked adequate safeguard of the personal data.
advertisement
What was the Supreme Court ruling in the Aadhaar Case?
On 24th August, 2017, the court unanimously ruled the right to privacy as the fundamental right under Article 21 but it didn’t hold the Aadhaar Act to be unconstitutional.
What was the Impact of the Puttaswamy judgment on the later cases?
The recognition of the fundamental right led to several landmark judgments in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India and Joseph Sine v. Union of India.
]]>Shalini Singh<![CDATA[Ratan Tata and the Epic Legecy]]>https://vaquill.com/personas/ratan-tata/2024-10-19T00:00:00.000ZRatan Naval Tata was a prominent Indian industrialist and philanthropist whose values, work ethics, and journey continue to inspire generations. He was the chairman of the Tata Group from 1990 to 2012 and held the position of Interim Chairman from October 2016 to February 2017. He is known for transforming the Tata group and helping it achieve its current height. He was awarded the Padma Bhushan (3rd highest civilian award in India) in 2000 and the Padma Vibhushan( 2nd highest civilian award in India) in 2008.
He was born on 28 December 1937 in Bombay (now Mumbai), India, to Naval Tata(father) and Sooni Commissariat (mother). He breathed his last on October 9, 2024, at Mumbai Breach Candy Hospital, in Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
He proved the meaning of his name Ratan (jewel) as he became the most precious jewel of India.
Ratan tata was born on 28 December 1937 to a Parsi Zoroastrian family in Bombay. His father Naval Tata was adopted by Navajbai, wife of Sir Ratanji Tata from J.N. Petit Parsi Orphanage. His mother Sooni Commissariat was the niece of the Tata group founder Jamsetji Tata. The two separated when Ratan Tata was 10 years old. He was subsequently raised by his grandmother Navajbai Tata, the widow of Sir Ratanji Tata along with his younger brother, Jimmy Tata. He had a stepbrother named Noel Tata, who was born out of his father’s second marriage to Simone Tata.
Ratan Tata attended the Campion School, Mumbai till class 8th. He later shifted to the Cathedral and John Connon School, Mumbai. He was also enrolled in the Bishop Cotton School in Shimla and the Riverdale Country School in New York City; he finally graduated high school in the year 1955. He went to Cornell University for further studies and graduated with a bachelor’s degree in architecture in 1962. He was an Alpha Sigma Phi Fraternity member while studying at Cornell. Later, he also pursued the Advanced Management Program at Harvard Business School in 1975.
In 1961, he met the architect A. Quincy Jones and joined his firm Jones & Emmons in Los Angeles as an architect. Ratan Tata planned to live and work as an architect in Los Angeles. But later, upon his grandmother’s request, he returned to India.
Back in India, Ratan Tata received a job offer from IBM, JRD Tata was not amused with the job offer, so he insisted on joining the Tata group. Ratan Tata joined Tata Sons in 1962, where he worked as an assistant at Tata Industries starting on the shop floor of Tata Steel.
He was given the position of Director-in-charge at NELCO (National Radio and Electronics), a subsidiary of Tata Group. He achieved initial success as he improved the consumer electronics division and turned the company into a profit-making enterprise. His work resulted in vain as the company later collapsed during an economic slowdown.
He was transferred to Empress Mills, in 1977, a struggling company under Tata Group. He devised the plan to improve it but the higher-ups rejected the plan and the company was later shut down.
He joined the board of Tata Sons as a director in 1974 and was later appointed as the chairman of Tata Industries in 1981
In 1991, JRD Tata stepped down as the chairman of Tata Sons and named Ratan Tata his successor. The decision resulted in a lot of resistance as the senior executives heading various companies like Russi Mody( Tata Steel), Ajit Kerkar ( Taj Hotels), Drabari Seth (Tata Tea, Tata Chemicals), and Nani Palkhivala ( Director on board of several Tata Companies) were expected to succeed JRD Tata and secure their position.
The decision invited a lot of criticism from both within the company and outside the company. He was branded as the wrong choice by several media outlets. While heading the company, he realized that the company was unevenly managed and heavily bureaucratic. He also faced severe opposition from the senior company executives who operated with much freedom under J.R.D Tata’s time.
Ratan Tata worked hard with dedication and proved them wrong. He brought about major changes in the functioning of the company. He introduced the policy wherein the subsidiary companies had to directly report to the group office, he convinced them to pay their profit for using the brand name of Tata Group.
advertisement
He also set a retirement age.
According to the new rule, the retirement age was set at 70 so that the senior workers were replaced with younger staff who would contribute to the company in the long run.
With this, the debate around the succession issue was put to an end as Seth and Kerkar retired because they had already crossed the age limit. Mody was sacked because of a public scuffle which went against the values of the company and Nani Palkhivala quit the job due to health issues.
After the succession issue was sorted Ratan Tata started to focus on improving the company. It was a remarkable coincidence as Ratan Tata’s succession as the company head synchronized with the opening of the Indian economy. The company was aiming to make the most out of the situation and aimed to operate the group on foreign shores.
Despite the severe criticism he faced during his initial years, it can be agreed upon that the Tata group under the reins of Ratan Tata flourished. During the 21 years he led the company, the revenue of the company grew over 40 times and the profit grew over 50 times.
When he initially took over the company the revenue was mainly generated through commodity sales but as he ended his tenure the majority of the sales were coming from the brands.
He acquired the English brand, Tetley through Tata Tea in the year 2000 for $450 million, Jaguar Land Rover was acquired by Tata Motors from Ford Motors in 2008 for $2.3 billion and the South Korean truck manufacturing unit of Daewoo Motors was acquired for 102$ million. He also led to the acquisition of the steel giant company Corus Group for $11.3 billion.
These acquisitions led to the expansion of the Tata Group and its global footprint by reaching over 100 countries.
He conceptualized the Tata nano car and launched it in 2008. The price of the vehicle was fixed at an affordable rate. The car was launched to attract the middle classmen of the society.
The Tata’s have been known for their core values. The company and its leaders have always believed that giving back to society should be one of the greatest motives of a company. A massive 66% of the Tata Group goes towards charitable purposes.
As Jamsetji Tata, founder of Tata Group stated “There is one kind of charity common enough among us. It is that patchwork philanthropy which clothes the ragged feeds the poor, and heals the sick.
I am far from decrying the noble spirit which seeks to help a poor or suffering fellow being. [However] what advances a nation or a community is not so much to prop up its weakest and most helpless members, but to lift up the best and the most gifted, so as to make them of the greatest service to the country.”
Ratan Tata has successfully carried forward his legacy of giving back to society through his philanthropic works.
His contributions cover a wide range of sectors which have helped India and its citizens immensely. His notable ones include:
The Tata Centre for Technology and Design at the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IIT-B), the Tata Centre for Technology and Design at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and the University of Chicago
The Tata Hall a state-of-the-art research facility, and The Tata Institute for Genetics and Society in UC San Diego.
Tata Education and Development Trust at Cornell University is a scholarship fund that supports approximately 20 Indian scholars studying there.
The Tata Innovation Center at the Cornell Tech
The Executive Centre at Harvard Business School, later named Tata Hall
He supported the University of New South Wales Faculty of Engineering in its initiative to provide and improve water quality in affected areas.
He is the Highest International donor to the Cornell University
Ratan Tata as the chairman of Tata Trusts provided a grant of Rs 750 million to the Centre of Neuroscience of the Indian Institute of Science to study the underlying causes of Alzheimer's disease and to evolve the methods for early diagnosis and treatment
He has given generous donations and support during natural calamities like COVID-19 and the donations for setting up several schools and hospitals.
The Transforming Rural India Initiative (TRI), an initiative of the Tata Group in collaboration with the government, NGOs, philanthropists, and civil society groups aims to transform the areas of acute poverty
He has several times worked with the government and NGOs to provide and improve water sanitation, nutrition, maternal care, and infrastructural support.
When Ratan Tata took over Empress Mills, a loss-making company under Tata Group, he demanded 50 lakh rupees to be sanctioned to improve the facility and turn it into a profit-making unit. The aim was revolutionary, but the demand was not sanctioned which led to its shutdown.
When Ratan was named as the successor of The Tata Group, he had to face lots of criticism from within and outside the group. He was termed as a bad choice. Despite these challenges, he proved his worth in the coming years.
He decided to enter the automobile industry with the launch of Tata Indica, an affordable car to attract the masses of the country. The car failed in the market and the company had to suffer losses.
Due to the recent failure, Ratan Tata decided to sell Tata Motors to the then-giant, Ford Motors. Reportedly, he was insulted by the Ford owner. Ford said, “When you don’t know anything about passenger cars, why did you start the business”. This was a major insult to Ratan Tata
Later in 2008, this insult was replied to very gracefully as Tata bought Jaguar-Land Rover for $2.3 billion from the now loss-making company Ford, which was on the verge of bankruptcy.
Ratan Tata designed the world’s most affordable car - Tata Nano, this project was launched with the aim of providing cars to middle-class men. The car’s launch price was capped at around rs. 1 lakh. But sadly, the project was a failure. The car’s design model was not to the liking of people and it failed miserably.
Despite the challenges he faced, he made sure to fight back. He always aimed for excellence, trust, and teamwork within the organization. He is known for his business acumen as well as
1. How is Ratan Tata related to the founder of the Tata group founder Jamshedji Tata?
Ratan Tata’s father Naval Tata was adopted by Sir Ratanji Tata who was the son of Jamshedji Tata while Ratan Tata’s mother Sooni Commissariat was the niece of Jamshedji Tata
]]>Shubhangi Singh<![CDATA[Justice Rajendra Mal Lodha - A Pillar of Indian Judiciary]]>https://vaquill.com/personas/justice-rajendra-mal-lodha/2024-09-14T00:00:00.000ZJustice Rajendra Mal Lodha, a distinguished figure in the Indian legal system, served as the 41st Chief Justice of India (CJI) from April 27, 2014, to September 27, 2014. Born on September 28, 1949, in Jodhpur, Rajasthan, Justice Lodha's journey in the legal profession was influenced by his family background, with his father, Justice S.K. Mal Lodha, serving as a permanent judge of the Rajasthan High Court.
Justice Lodha's early years were steeped in law and justice. Growing up in Jodhpur, Rajasthan, he was exposed to legal discussions from a young age. He completed his schooling in Jodhpur before pursuing higher education. Justice Lodha earned his law degree from the University of Jodhpur, laying the foundation for his future career in the judiciary.
Justice Lodha's legal career began when he enrolled with the Bar Council of Rajasthan in 1973. He practiced law in the Rajasthan High Court, handling cases including Constitutional, Civil, and Criminal matters. This diverse experience proved invaluable in his future roles as a judge.
His judicial career progressed as follows:
Elevated as a Permanent Judge of the Rajasthan High Court on January 31, 1994
Transferred to the Bombay High Court on February 16, 1994
Transferred back to the Rajasthan High Court on February 27, 1994
Appointed as the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court on May 13, 2008
Elevated as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India on December 17, 2008
Appointed as the 41st Chief Justice of India on April 27, 2014
One of the most significant judgments during Justice Lodha's tenure came in the coal block allocation case. Leading a bench of the Supreme Court, he declared that all coal block allocations made by the government between 1993 and 2010 were illegal and arbitrary. This landmark judgment had far-reaching implications for India's coal sector and highlighted corruption and lack of transparency in the allocation process.
Throughout his career, Justice Lodha was a staunch advocate for the independence of the judiciary. He consistently emphasized the need to maintain the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary, viewing this as crucial for the health of India's democracy.
After his retirement, Justice Lodha headed a committee appointed by the Supreme Court to recommend reforms for the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). The committee's recommendations, known as the Lodha Committee reforms, aimed to bring about significant changes in the governance and functioning of Indian cricket.
As part of a two-judge bench, Justice Lodha delivered a landmark judgment recognizing transgender individuals as a "third gender" and affirming their fundamental rights.
In a significant judgment, a bench led by Justice Lodha commuted the death sentences of 15 convicts to life imprisonment, citing inordinate delay in deciding their mercy petitions.
Justice Lodha was part of the bench that canceled 122 telecom licenses allocated in the 2G spectrum case, citing irregularities in the allocation process.
Justice Lodha emphasized the need for transparency in the appointment of judges. He supported the idea of a more open and accountable system for judicial appointments.
He advocated for improving access to justice for all sections of society, emphasizing the need for speedy disposal of cases and reducing court pendency.
His most notable post-retirement role was heading the committee to recommend reforms for the BCCI, which had far-reaching implications for cricket administration in India.
Justice Rajendra Mal Lodha's tenure as CJI, though brief, was marked by significant judgments and a strong emphasis on judicial integrity and reforms. His contributions to Indian jurisprudence, particularly in transparency and cricket administration reforms, have left a lasting impact on the Indian legal and sports landscape.
His advocacy for judicial independence, transparency in appointments, and modernization of the judiciary continue to influence discussions on judicial reforms in India. Justice Lodha's legacy is that of a jurist who sought to strengthen the foundations of India's judicial system while adapting it to meet contemporary challenges.
He emphasized the importance of judicial integrity: "The judiciary must not only be independent but must also appear to be independent." This perspective underscores his belief in public perception's crucial role in maintaining trust in the judicial system.
Throughout his career, Justice Lodha received recognition for his contributions to the Indian legal system. While specific awards are not widely documented, his appointment as the Chief Justice of India is a testament to his expertise and reputation in the legal community.
Justice Rajendra Mal Lodha's journey from a lawyer in Rajasthan to the Chief Justice of India is a testament to his legal acumen and commitment to justice. His tenure, though brief, was marked by significant judgments and initiatives that continue to shape Indian jurisprudence.
From his landmark ruling in the coal allocation case to his post-retirement work on cricket reforms, Justice Lodha has left an indelible mark on India's legal and sporting landscape. His advocacy for judicial independence, transparency, and modernization reflects a forward-thinking approach to addressing the challenges facing the Indian judicial system.
As India continues to grapple with issues of judicial reform and sports governance, the principles and ideas put forth by Justice Lodha remain relevant and influential. His legacy serves as a reminder of the vital role that principled and reform-minded jurists play in shaping a nation's legal and social fabric.
Final year law student interested in dispute resolution with diverse internship experiences ranging from white collar law to recovery law & immigration law. Thoroughly proficient in drafting legal docs, conducting case analysis and research, and participating in courtroom proceedings from hands-on internships.
]]>Indrabha Biswas<![CDATA[U.U. Lalit - The 49th CJI of Supreme Court of India]]>https://vaquill.com/personas/justice-u-u-lalit/2024-09-14T00:00:00.000ZCJI U.U. Lalit became the 49th Chief Justice of India for a short time of 74 days. Even though his time in office was brief, he did a tremendous amount of work. In just 4 days, he dealt with many important legal cases and resolved 1,293 small issues, 106 regular cases, and 440 transfer cases.
The Chief Justice of India, Uday Umesh Lalit, was born on November 9, 1957, in Solapur, Maharashtra. His father, Justice U.R. Lalit, was a judge in Nagpur. CJI Uday got his law degree from Government Law College in Mumbai and became a lawyer in 1983, working at the Bombay High Court until 1985. He later worked for the Attorney General of India, Soli Sorabjee, from 1986 to 1992.
He became well-known for his work in criminal law and handled famous cases, like Salman Khan’s poaching case and a fake encounter case (murder of Sohrabuddin Sheikh and Tulsiram Prajapati). He was promoted to Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court in 2004. After 10 years as a Senior Advocate, Uday Lalit became a Supreme Court Judge and later the Chief Justice of India.
UU Lalit started his career as a lawyer in 1983. Here are some important events in his professional life:
1983: He became a lawyer and worked at the Bombay High Court.
1986: He worked with the Attorney General of India, Soli Sorabjee.
2004: He became a Senior Advocate in the Supreme Court on April 29, 2004.
2011: Judges GS Singhvi and AK Ganguly appointed him as the_ Special Public Prosecutor _for the CBI in the 2G spectrum case.
2014: The Supreme Court collegium recommended him to be a Supreme Court Judge. In 2014, he removed himself from hearing Yakub Menon's plea to review the Supreme Court's decision to uphold his death sentence in the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts case.
2015: He stepped aside from a petition asking for a fair trial in the 2008 Malegaon Blasts because he had previously defended one of the accused.
2016: He took himself out of a case looking into the disappearance of an important witness in the trial of Asaram Bapu. He also removed himself from a case involving former Haryana Chief Minister Om Prakash Chautala in the teacher recruitment scam.
2017: He stepped aside from the appeals in the Suryanelli Rape case because he had represented one of the accused before.
2018: He removed himself from a case where an accused in the Malegaon Blast asked for an investigation into alleged torture and coercion by law enforcement.
2019: He gained media attention when he removed himself from the 5-judge panel for the Ayodhya dispute case.
2020: He was part of the 2-judge panel that heard the Travancore Royal case about the management of the Sree Padmanabha Swamy temple by the Travancore Royal family.
2022: He took the oath as the Chief Justice of India.
advertisement
Highlighted Cases During the Tenure of The CJI U.U. Lalit:
Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India: A Constitution Bench led by CJI UU Lalit, along with Justices Ravindra Bhat, Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela Trivedi, and JB Pardiwala, has supported the 103rd Constitutional Amendment regarding education and public jobs. CJI UU Lalit agreed with Justice Ravindra Bhat’s disagreement, who ruled that the entire amendment is unconstitutional.
Kashi Nath Mahajan v State of Maharashtra: J. Lalit and J. Goel added three rules to prevent the misuse of The Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In the case, they established the following procedures:
A preliminary inquiry must be done before registering a First Information Report (FIR).
The investigating officer needs additional approval before making an arrest.
There should be a provision for granting anticipatory bail under the Act.
Gyanendra Kumar Singh and Ors vs Bihar Legislative Assembly Patna And Ors: In this case, the issue was about whether the Speaker could deny pensions to disqualified MLAs. The bench, which included Chief Justice U.U. Lalit, Justice Ravindra Bhat, and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, stated that the Speaker of a Legislative Assembly does not have the power to deny a pension and other benefits to a former MLA while deciding on a disqualification case against them.
Smriti Madan Kansagra v. Perry Kansagra: The bench of J. UU Lalit, Indu Malhotra, and Hemant Gupta explained the idea of a mirror order. They stated that a mirror order is meant to ensure that the courts in the country where the child is being moved can handle custody cases properly. Such an order protects the interests of both parents and ensures that the rights to visit and temporarily care for the child are not affected. This judgment was a 2:1 decision, with J. Indu Malhotra writing the majority opinion. In this case, J. UU Lalit decided to transfer the custody of an 11- to 12-month-old child from his mother, with whom he had lived since birth, to his father, an Indian-born businessman living in Kenya.
advertisement
All India Transporters Welfare Association & Anr. v Union Of India & Ors: In this case, the bench, including Chief Justice U.U. Lalit, Justice Ravindra Bhat, and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, discussed Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which allows police to seize property that may be stolen or in a suspicious condition. They concluded that public interest litigation under Article 32 was not the right way to handle this issue. CJI UU Lalit stated, "If there are specific cases where someone believes there has been a failure to comply, that person can file the appropriate proceedings. The complaint raised in the petition is not something that should be addressed under Article 32."
The Tripal Talaq Case: In the case of Shayara Bano v. Union of India, this important judgment was made by a Constitution Bench of 5 Judges: Chief Justice Khehar, Kurian Joseph, RF Nariman, UU Lalit, and S. Abdul Nazeer. The bench declared Triple Talaq to be a violation of Article 14, making it unconstitutional. Justice Nariman, writing for himself and Lalit, stated that the instant and permanent nature of triple talaq prevents any chance of reconciliation between the husband and wife. This goes against traditional Indian legal practices, which is why it is considered invalid.
M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance co. ltd . v. Dnyanraj & Ors: In this case, the Division Bench, which included Chief Justice U.U. Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat, supported the Bombay High Court's order. This order directed Bajaj Allianz General Insurance to compensate 357,287 farmers in the Osmanabad district of Maharashtra. The compensation was for losses related to their soybean crop after the Kharif season in 2020 due to heavy rainfall.
Sri Marthanda Varma (d) v. State of Kerala: This case is an example of the rights of the Travancore Royal family to manage the Sree Padmanabha Swamy temple, which is one of the richest temples in the world, located in Kerala. The situation referred to certain decisions and concluded that inherited property follows the founder's line of inheritance. The court cannot create a new rule about inheritance or change the existing rules of succession.
advertisement
Pyare Lal Vs. State of Haryana: The 3-Judge bench, made up of Justice UU Lalit, Justice MM Shantanagoudar, and Justice Vineet Saran, looked into whether a policy created under Article 161 for granting remission can override the requirements under Section 433-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). A larger bench framed the following question: “Can a policy be made under Article 161 of the Constitution that sets certain rules for granting remission by the government without presenting details or information about any cases to the governor, and can this override the requirements of Section 433-A of the CrPC?
Rishi Malhotra v. Union of India: In this case, the Supreme Court bench, including Chief Justice U.U. Lalit, Justice Ravindra Bhat, and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, stated that bringing an accused person into the courtroom is an essential part of the criminal justice system. They rejected a Public Interest Litigation that asked for a ban on bringing undertrial prisoners to court to ensure the safety of judges, prisoners, and others in the courtroom.
After reading the above information, it is clear that CJI UU Lalit has fulfilled his role well. He actively listed important cases that raised legal questions and made sure the Supreme Court operated efficiently. His professionalism is something everyone can learn from.
In India, where there are millions of pending cases, all courts, both lower and higher, need to work at the same pace seen during his two and a half months in office. CJI U.U.
Lalit not only ensured the smooth functioning of the court system but also served on different benches to promote complete justice and transparency. The court is a crucial protector of civil liberties, and the Supreme Court must remain neutral and unaffected by any influence from the executive branch.
To protect the independence of India’s judicial system, it is essential to appoint Supreme Court judges without any pressure or bias. The Supreme Court is the highest appellate body in our legal system. With its establishment, justice is ensured for all citizens of India.
The powers given to the Supreme Court are meant to guarantee fair trials in matters related to the Constitution of India.
On the last working day, the 49th Chief Justice UU Lalit, leading the Ceremonial Bench along with the 50th Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice BM Trivedi, stated: “I have practiced at the Supreme Court for about 37 years, but I have never seen two Constitution Benches sitting simultaneously. But, after I became the Chief Justice, on a particular day, there were three Constitution Benches. It was also the day we started live-streaming. So, I leave with a sense of great achievement and satisfaction.”
Ruthvik Nayaka is a final year law student, his interests lie in areas including, but not limited to, Corporate Law and taxation law. He is also the EN-ROADS Climate Ambassador. He facilitates climate-workshops, climate action simulation games and group meetings.
]]>Ruthvik Nayaka<![CDATA[Justice N.V. Ramana - A Legacy]]>https://vaquill.com/personas/justice-n-v-ramana/2024-09-09T00:00:00.000ZNuthalapati Venkata Ramana is an influential figure in Indian Judiciary. He served as the 48th Chief Justice of India. He is known for his commitment to justice and democracy as he played a key role in shaping the legal sphere of the country.
N.V. Ramana was born on August 27, 1957 in the village of Ponnavaram in Krishna district of Andhra Pradesh. He was raised in a humble agricultural family, so he was aware of the struggles and challenges faced by the rural community from an early age. He completed his bachelor’s in science, after which he studied law at Acharya Nagarjuna University, Andhra Pradesh. In college, Justice Ramana fought for civil liberties during the emergency year and also participated in the Jai Andhra Movement for a separate Andhra state.
Justice N.V. Ramana started practicing Law in 1983 where he focused on constitutional, civil, and criminal cases. His dedication and skill quickly made him a respected lawyer known for his work in constitutional law and human rights.
In 2000, he became a permanent judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, where he took many important cases and was praised for his fair judgments.
This showed his understanding of complex legal issues and showed his commitment to justice. By 2013, Justice Ramana was appointed Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court where he worked to make the judiciary more efficient and accessible by helping it to reduce case backlogs and speed up justice.
In 2014, he was elevated to the Supreme Court of India. As a Supreme Court judge, Justice Ramana was part of many crucial decisions on constitutional rights, civil liberties, and environmental issues. In 2021, he was promoted as the Chief Justice of India, serving till 26 August 2022, thereby retiring.
The Supreme Court in the constitutional bench of 5, in the case of Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, ruled that the office of the Chief Justice of India falls under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Justice N.V. Ramana, in his concurring opinion, gave importance to transparency but it should not hinder the effective functioning of the judiciary as right to information can be used as a means to investigate the judges.
advertisement
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and Customs Act
Bench led by Ramana CJ, decided in the case of Sundaresh Bhatt v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs that when a company is going through bankruptcy under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code will prevail over the Customs Act.
This means that once the bankruptcy process starts and a moratorium is placed on debt payments, customs officials can only figure out how much money is owed but cannot take any action to collect those payments while the bankruptcy is underway.
In the case of Subhashini Ali v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana and Justices Ajay Rastogi and Vikram Nath, asked the Gujarat Government to explain its decision to release 11 men who were convicted for the gangrape of Bilkis Bano during the 2002 Gujarat riots.
The Court also ordered that these 11 men be included in the case challenging the Gujarat Government's decision.
A question whether to keep or remove the Sedition law (punishes actions or speech that lead hatred, violence, or rebellion against the government) was in front of the Supreme Court in the case of S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India.
A bench of Chief Justice N.V. Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli advised both State and Central Governments not to file any new cases, continue any investigations, or take any action under Section 124A of the IPC, which deals with sedition till the time the law is being reviewed.
Supreme Court, in the case of Jindal Stainless Ltd v. State of Haryana where a 9-judge bench decided with a 7-2 majority that states can impose taxes on goods brought in from other states.
The Court explained that the term "Free" in Article 301 of the Constitution doesn’t mean “free from taxes.” Chief Justice T.S. Thakur and Justices A.K. Sikri, S.A. Bobde, Shiva Kirti Singh, N.V. Ramana, R. Banumathi, and A.M. Khanwilkar explained that states have the right to set up tax laws to ensure that imported goods and locally produced goods are taxed equally.
When Chief Justice N.V. Ramana took the office, he saw multiple challenges in the judicial functioning. The country was suffering from the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic, and the judiciary was struggling with a backlog of cases and numerous judicial vacancies.
To solve these issues, Chief Justice Ramana introduced several reforms. He launched FASTER (Fast and Secured Transmission of Electronic Records), a software designed to increase the speed and secure the transmission of court decisions and orders.
This initiative aimed to reduce delays in the prisoners’ release by bail due to slow processing of hard copy orders by jail authorities.
Justice Ramana recognized the impact of the pandemic on journalists covering Supreme Court proceedings. Therefore, he introduced an app to provide media professionals with access to Supreme Court video links. This act was highly praised for improving transparency and ensuring fast disposal of court judgments.
In conclusion, the career of Justice Ramana highlights his strong commitment to justice, fairness, and the rule of law. His work has been deeply praised and is influential by making a significant impact on the legal system. Justice Ramana's legacy is shown by his commitment to social justice and democratic values, and he will keep inspiring future generations in their efforts to achieve justice and equality for everyone.
Aspiring lawyer with a passion for justice and a strong foundation in organization, communication, and problem-solving skills. Currently pursuing a B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) degree at RMLNLU, where I am actively involved in moot court and NegMed competitions. Eager to leverage my skills and academic background to contribute to a dynamic legal environment and make a positive impact on society.
]]>Chandra Kant Singh<![CDATA[Justice S.A. Bobde - A Pillar of Legacy]]>https://vaquill.com/personas/justice-s-a-bobde/2024-09-09T00:00:00.000ZSharad Arvind Bobde has been an important figure in the Indian judiciary, where he served as the 47th Chief Justice of India. He was known for his balanced approach and commitment to support the rule of law. Justice Bobde has greatly influenced the legal landscape of India.
He is the son of Arvind Shrinivas Bobde and Smt. Pramila Bobde. Justice Bobde assumed office as the Chief Justice on November 18, 2019, and served until his retirement on April 23, 2021. During his tenure, he was involved in landmark cases such as the Ayodhya land dispute, the Aadhaar case, and issues related to technology and privacy.
Sharad Arvind Bobde was born on April 24, 1956, in Nagpur, Maharashtra. When growing up, he had a rich legal background, which helped him to develop an early interest in law. He completed his Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) and then pursued a degree in law from Nagpur University. Justice Bobde's education helped him in a deep understanding of legal principles, which he later applied in his legal career.
Justice Bobde started practising law in 1978 by enrolling in the Bar Council of Maharashtra as an advocate, where he focused on constitutional, administrative, and company law. His strong legal knowledge and dedication gave him respect as a lawyer who was known for handling complex legal issues with precision.
In 2000, Justice Bobde was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court, where he was known for his thorough judgments.
In 2012, he was elevated to the Supreme Court of India. As a Supreme Court judge, he participated in numerous high-profile cases, showing a commitment to constitutional rights and civil liberties. His appointment as the Chief Justice of India in 2019 helped him reach the top of his judicial career.
In M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, a five-judge bench, including Ranjan Gogoi, S.A. Bobde, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan, and S. Abdul Nazeer, resolved the Ayodhya Title dispute. They unanimously held that the disputed land should be given to a trust to build the Ram Temple. To address the interests of both parties, the Court also ordered that a suitable 5-acre plot should be given to the Sunni Waqf Board to build a mosque.
Justice Bobde was also part of a nine-judge bench in the case of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India that made an important decision confirming that the right to privacy is a fundamental part of the right to life and personal freedom under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court held that the right to privacy is an essential part of Article 21 and the freedoms in Part III of the Constitution.
In K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, Justice Bobde was part of a three-judge bench that helped establish the ‘Right to Privacy’ as a fundamental right. The bench decided that the question of Aadhaar's validity should be looked at by a larger bench. Until a decision was made, it ruled that having an Aadhaar card would not be mandatory for citizens, and people could not be required to show an Aadhaar card to receive benefits they were entitled to.
In the case of Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (2017), a seven-judge bench ruled that making appeals based on religion, race, caste, community, or language during elections is considered "corrupt practice" and is illegal under Section 123 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. In the concurring opinion, Justice Bobde said that such appeals should be avoided to maintain the secular nature of democratic life.
In Mohammad Salimullah v. Union of India (2021), a bench led by Chief Justice Bobde held that Rohingya refugees cannot claim protection against deportation under Article 19(1)(e), which guarantees freedom of movement. The bench clarified that the fundamental rights under Article 19 are only available to citizens of India.
Justice S.A. Bobde was involved in significant events and decisions in the Supreme Court, where he was involved in some of the most important judgments in Indian history, such as the Ayodhya verdict, which resolved one of the longest-standing disputes in the country. His tenure coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, during which he played an important role in ensuring that the courts continued to function under challenging circumstances.
Justice Bobde carried a legacy where he authored 68 judgements and was part of 560 benches, showing his contributions to impactful and important discussions within the legal community. Justice Bobde is defined by his commitment to justice and the development of the legal system in India which inspires both legal professionals and the public.
Aspiring lawyer with a passion for justice and a strong foundation in organization, communication, and problem-solving skills. Currently pursuing a B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) degree at RMLNLU, where I am actively involved in moot court and NegMed competitions. Eager to leverage my skills and academic background to contribute to a dynamic legal environment and make a positive impact on society.
]]>Chandra Kant Singh<![CDATA[The Legacy of Vishweshwar Nath Khare - A Pillar of Justice and Resilience]]>https://vaquill.com/personas/justice-vishweshwar-nath-khare/2024-09-03T00:00:00.000ZImage Credit: V.N. Khare
In a small town in Uttar Pradesh, India, there was a young boy named Vishweshwar Nath Khare who dreamt of bringing justice to others.
He came from a modest background, but his strong sense of duty and desire to correct wrongs pushed him forward. No one could have guessed that this boy would one day become a major figure in Indian law, making a lasting impact on the country's legal system.
Vishweshwar Nath Khare was born on November 2, 1939, in a simple family in Kanpur. His early life was influenced by his father, a respected teacher, who taught him the importance of working hard and being honest.
Even though his family had limited financial means, Khare did very well in school because he loved learning and was dedicated to justice.
Justice Khare completed his education in Allahabad, graduating from the prestigious St. Joseph's School. He was not only a dedicated student but also had a strong interest in sports, particularly cricket. He was an outstanding cricketer and even represented Uttar Pradesh in the 1958 Ranji Trophy matches.
After finishing school, Khare attended Allahabad University, where he earned a Bachelor of Arts degree. He then pursued a law degree (LLB) and enrolled with the Allahabad BarAssociation on November 28, 1961. Throughout his academic journey, he consistently excelled, demonstrating his sharp intellect and deep passion for the law.
Khare began his legal journey with a small practice in Kanpur. His sharp legal skills and dedication quickly earned him a reputation as a strong and capable lawyer. Chief Justice V.N. Khare's legal career officially began in 1961 when he registered as a pleader at the Allahabad High Court, now located in Prayagraj.
Judge Khare was known for being very thorough and careful when making decisions, always following the law, and being completely dedicated to making sure justice was served. His rulings were known for being clear, fair, and deeply rooted in legal principles.
He played a major role in several landmark cases that helped shape India’s legal system and set precedents that are still influential today.
One of Khare's major contributions was in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973. This case addressed the "basic structure" of the Constitution, and Judge Khare's wise comments and thoughtful decisions were very important in helping the court make sense of a difficult problem, and making sure the basic rights and values of the Constitution were protected.
Early in his career, he mainly focused on Civil, Writ, and Revenue cases.
He was chosen to be the Chief Counsel for the Government of Uttar Pradesh. Later, on June 25, 1983, he became a judge in the Allahabad High Court.
In 1996, he became the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, and a year later, he was promoted to the highest court in India, the Supreme Court.
advertisement
One of Justice Khare’s most notable cases when he was an advocate, was the 1975 State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain, often referred to as the Emergency case. Raj Narain accused then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi of electoral fraud, which led to her losing her position and eventually declaring a state of Emergency in India. Justice Khare, along with his uncle S.C. Khare, defended Indira Gandhi.
However, the case resulted in a 19-month suspension of democracy in India, marking it a historic event.
Justice Khare also drew attention for his comments on the 2002 Gujarat violence, where he criticised the then-Chief Minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi, who is now the Prime Minister of India.
Modi responded by stating that judges should refrain from political commentary and focus solely on their judicial responsibilities. Some critics noted that Justice Khare waited until after his retirement to express his views, which was seen by some as an effort to avoid backlash.
On January 23, 2004, Chief Justice Khare delivered a significant ruling in the case of Union of India v. Naveen Jindal. He upheld the basic right of citizens to fly the tricolour flag. Before this decision, there were strict rules that allowed the flag to be displayed only on specific occasions and at official government facilities. The court found that these restrictions violated the fundamental right to free expression.
Additionally, it was ruled that the "Flag Code of India," the rules that put these limits in place were just suggestions from the government, and not a real law that had to be followed.
Despite the controversies, Justice Khare is widely respected for his dedication and professionalism. Since his retirement, he has occasionally appeared on television and in the media to share his views on current issues.
One of his notable public comments was on the Jessica Lal murder case, which involved Manu Sharma, the son of a powerful politician. Justice Khare remains active in public life and served as the Chancellor of the Central University of Jharkhandfrom 2017 till 2023. In 2006, he was honoured with the Padma Vibhushan, India’s second-highest civilian award.
Even though Khare had an impressive career, he faced many challenges and hardships. In his early years, he had to deal with financial problems and family duties, which forced him to take on many different roles. Moving from being a small-town lawyer to becoming a top judge was tough. He had to work through the complicated Indian legal system and handle the stress of important cases.
After retiring in 2004, Justice Khare remained a public figure. In 2012, his controversial remarks about judges being above the law and his claim that he had saved India's legal system sparked widespread debate.
He later clarified that his intention was to highlight the flaws in the system in hopes of encouraging future reforms. Khare's dedication to justice was challenged during difficult times of political unrest in India. His court rulings were often questioned by different groups, including politicians and powerful people. Despite this, Khare stayed true to his values, always putting the law above political pressure.
Khare had a successful career with several achievements and awards. As a judge, he made important decisions that have greatly influenced Indian law. His work in the legal field earned him recognition and showed his strong dedication to justice.
One of Khare's key accomplishments was improving legal education in India. He played a major role in setting up legal institutions and programs to better train future lawyers, ensuring that the principles of justice and fairness were passed on.
Khare also cared deeply about social justice, getting involved in cases that helped marginalized communities. He fought against inequality and discrimination, and his decisions in these cases showed his compassion and commitment to fairness for all.
Vishweshwar Nath Khare's life shows us what it means to be fair and honest. He had a tough start, but he still did great things for India's laws. He inspires people who want to be lawyers and reminds us that one person can make a big change in the world.
Looking at Khare's life, we learn that it's important to keep going even when things are hard and to always try to do the right thing. He went from being a regular person to being a big deal in Indian law, and that shows us that if we work hard and don't give up, we can do great things and make the world a better place.
Litigation-trained Advocate with cross-border legal research experience, blending courtroom strategy with precise drafting and advisory work. Passionate about criminal law, dispute resolution, and making complex legal ideas accessible through writing and explaining with food examples and real life anecdotes. Off-duty, I’m a fish enthusiast, dystopian fiction reader, and unapologetic Brooklyn 99 fan.
]]>Seersha Chaudhuri<![CDATA[The Unyielding Justice - A Glimpse into the Life and Legacy of Konakuppakatil Gopinathan Balakrishnan]]>https://vaquill.com/personas/justice-konakuppakatil/2024-08-24T00:00:00.000Z“Both advocates and judges have an equal responsibility towards the society. So both deserve equal respect from the people.”
His presence was striking, not due to his looks or his robes, but because of the deep respect and wisdom he radiated.
That day, a significant case was being heard that could reshape how constitutional rights are understood in India. The courtroom was packed with eager observers and legal experts, all waiting for the decision of a man known for his fairness and integrity.
Justice Balakrishnan, with his sharp gaze and calm demeanour, was well known as a strong defender of justice. His career, marked by important rulings and a constant fight for equality, showed his deep understanding of the law and his dedication to upholding constitutional values.
Born on May 12, 1945, in a modest family in Kerala, Konakuppakatil Gopinathan Balakrishnan's journey to becoming a top judge in India was anything but ordinary.
Despite limited resources, he excelled in his studies, driven by a passion for justice and public service. After finishing his early education in Thalayolaparambu, he went to Government High School in Vaikom, walking 5 km each day. He then attended Maharaja's College in Ernakulam for his B.Sc. and later earned his Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) degree from Government Law College, Ernakulam.
He registered as an advocate with the Kerala Bar Council in 1968 and started practising at the Munsiff's court in Vaikom. He completed his LL.M. in 1971.
Justice K.G. Balakrishnan is married to Nirmala Balakrishnan, and together they have three children: a son named Pradeep and two daughters, Sony and Rani. He comes from a large family, with five brothers and two sisters.
One of his younger brothers, K.G. Bhaskaran, worked as a government lawyer in the Kerala High Court, while another brother, K.G. Raju, was honoured with the IAS (Indian Administrative Service) by the Kerala Government and served as the District Collector of Wayanad, Kerala.
As a lawyer, he worked on both criminal and regular cases in the Ernakulam court. In 1973, he got a job as a Munsiff in the Kerala Judicial Services, but he later quit to go back to practicing law at the Kerala High Court. In 1985, he became a judge at the Kerala High Court, and in 1997, he was moved to the Gujarat High Court.
In 1998, he became the Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court, and in 1999, he took over as the Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Madras. While he was the Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court, he also filled in as the Acting Governor of Gujarat from January 16, 1999, to March 18, 1999.
He was the big boss and the chairman of the National Legal Service Authority and a member of the council that runs the Gujarat National Law University.
advertisement
June 8th, 2000 was the day he became a judge in the Supreme Court. He took the oath as India's Chief Justice on January 14th, 2007, with then-President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam looking on. He hung up his judge's robes on May 12th, 2010, and since June 7th, 2010, he's been the Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission.
One defining moment of his tenure was the Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973, which established the basic structure doctrine, preventing amendments that alter fundamental aspects of the Constitution.
Although Balakrishnan was not a judge in this case, its principles influenced his judicial philosophy and became a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law.
“The Chief Justice of India Shri K.G. Balakrishnan administered the oath of office of the President of India to Smt. Pratibha Patil at a swearing-in ceremony in the central hall of Parliament, in New Delhi“
In this case, Sanjay Dutt, a famous actor in Bollywood, was convicted of being involved in the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts. While he was waiting to see if his appeal would succeed, he decided to take his case to the Supreme Court to challenge the elections. This was because his conviction was not yet finalized, meaning the decision could still be overturned.
However, J. Balakrishnan, the judge handling this matter, rejected Dutt's request. The reason for this decision was the seriousness of the crime Dutt was accused of.
The judge took into account the gravity of the 1993 Mumbai explosions, which were major events involving significant harm and loss of life. As a result, Balakrishnan decided that Dutt's request to challenge the elections should not be granted due to the severe nature of the offence he was involved in.
Justice K.G. Balakrishnan upheld the judgement of the High Court about the border between the state of Karnataka and the erstwhile state of Andhra Pradesh to be concrete. The case centred on the issue of defining the exact boundary between these two states.
The Supreme Court had previously established a Committee to handle this responsibility. Justice Balakrishnan emphasised the importance of clearly marking the border to prevent disputes and make sure of proper jurisdictional management. In his ruling, Justice Balakrishnan directed that the Committee previously set up by the Supreme Court should continue the finalizing and establishing the border.
He took a decisive step by suspending all mining operations in the disputed area until the boundary was clearly established. This decision was aimed at preventing any illegal mining activities that could occur due to unclear jurisdiction. Furthermore, Justice Balakrishnan issued a stern warning to all parties involved.
He stated that failure to comply with the court’s directive would result in contempt of court. This means that if the mining activities continued or if there was non-compliance with the court's order, those responsible would face legal penalties for disobeying the court.
Justice K.G. Balakrishnan led a panel of five judges to evaluate the Mandal Commission's decision regarding reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in educational institutions. The Mandal Commission had recommended that 27% of seats in educational institutions be reserved for OBCs to help promote social and economic equality.
Justice Balakrishnan's assessment was thorough and fair. He emphasized that the reservation was meant to support those who genuinely needed it, rather than the more privileged or "creamy layer" among the OBCs. His goal was to ensure that the benefits of this reservation policy reached those who were truly disadvantaged.
During his decade on the Supreme Court, Justice Balakrishnan was notably active in handling criminal cases. However, he also dealt with significant matters related to caste-based reservations, elections, and issues of encroachment.
Throughout his tenure, he wrote a total of 219 decisions and participated in 787 bench sittings, demonstrating his extensive involvement and contributions to the legal field. He was known for being polite and open when talking to people, whether they were lawyers or the general public.
He was easy to approach and always ready to listen to different opinions, which helped him build a reputation as a fair and just judge.
advertisement
Celebrating the Honors and Achievements of Justice K.G. Balakrishnan
In 2007, Justice K.G. Balakrishnan became the 37th Chief Justice of India, making history as the first person from the Dalit community to hold this prestigious position. His appointment was widely recognized as a landmark moment in Indian judicial history, symbolising progress towards an all-embracing approach and social justice.
As Chief Justice, Justice Balakrishnan also took on the role of Chairman of the National Judicial Academy, where he played a significant role in shaping the future of judicial education in India. Under his leadership, the academy expanded its programs to better train and prepare judges across the country.
2009: Chairing the National Human Rights Commission
After retiring as Chief Justice in 2010, Justice Balakrishnan was appointed the Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). During his tenure, he focused on issues related to human rights violations, especially those affecting marginalized communities. His efforts were instrumental in raising awareness and advocating for the protection of human rights across India.
Justice Balakrishnan was honoured for his contributions to legal education and reforms. His emphasis on judicial transparency and accessibility was acknowledged through various spheres, recognizing his efforts to make the Indian legal system more inclusive and responsive to the needs of the common people.
Even after his retirement, Justice Balakrishnan continued to be recognized for his dedication to social justice. In 2019, he was honoured for his advocacy for the rights of marginalised communities and his efforts to promote equality within the legal system.
These achievements show Justice K.G. Balakrishnan's impressive career and lasting impact on the Indian legal system. They reflect his strong commitment to fairness, justice, and making society better for everyone.
Despite his achievements, Justice Balakrishnan faced challenges and criticism. Some questioned the pace of judicial reforms and his handling of high profile cases. Balakrishnan responded calmly, emphasising the complexities of the judicial process and the need for a balanced approach to justice.
He also advocated for reforms in the appointment process for judges, aiming for a more transparent and merit based system to enhance the judiciary's efficiency and credibility.
He also faced accusations of being involved in fixing judicial decisions. A former judge Justice PK Shamsuddin claimed that he had been approached by someone trying to influence the outcome of cases during Justice Balakrishnan's tenure.
The ex-judge suggested that this interference could have affected the fairness of the judgments. The allegations further suggested that the son-in-law of Justice Balakrishnan might have been committing financial misconduct and collected an unreasonable amount of assets by the son-in-law, raising concerns about possible corruption or improper conduct.
As of 2024, the matter remains a historical point of discussion. There have been no new developments or findings that have come up regarding these allegations.
The case continues to be a reference point in discussions about judicial accountability and transparency in India, but no new evidence has been presented that changes the earlier conclusions.
Background: For the past 19 years, there have been petitions pending in the Supreme Court regarding whether Dalits who convert to religions other than Sikhism or Buddhism should be granted Scheduled Caste (SC) status. This issue has been a significant legal and social matter in India.
In 2021:Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) K.G. Balakrishnan was appointed to lead an inquiry commission to address this issue. The commission's task is to investigate whether Dalit converts to other religions should receive SC status, which would affect their access to various benefits and protections.
2022 Update: Justice Balakrishnan expressed confidence that the inquiry commission could complete its work within a year. He highlighted the importance of this inquiry in resolving long-standing issues related to caste-based reservations and rights for converted Dalits.
Current Status: As of 2024, the Supreme Court is awaiting the report from the K.G. Balakrishnan Commission. The court's decision on this matter will be influenced by the findings and recommendations of the commission. The resolution of this issue is eagerly being awaited as it will impact many individuals and communities.
Justice Balakrishnan had a significant role in India's judiciary, marked by both notable achievements and controversies. While he championed judicial reforms and delivered important rulings, he faced criticism and allegations of misconduct, including accusations about influencing cases and financial irregularities involving his family.
Balakrishnan's life story, from his humble beginnings in a Dalit family to becoming Chief Justice, is inspiring. In the face of controversies, it is challenging to determine whether to focus solely on his achievements or consider the allegations against him.
Ultimately, justice demands both recognition of contributions and scrutiny of wrongdoing. We should remember that all individuals, regardless of their status, are subject to both praise for their good deeds and investigation for any misdeeds, reflecting the true essence of justice.
Litigation-trained Advocate with cross-border legal research experience, blending courtroom strategy with precise drafting and advisory work. Passionate about criminal law, dispute resolution, and making complex legal ideas accessible through writing and explaining with food examples and real life anecdotes. Off-duty, I’m a fish enthusiast, dystopian fiction reader, and unapologetic Brooklyn 99 fan.
]]>Seersha Chaudhuri<![CDATA[Justice Sanjiv Khanna - From an Advocate to a Supreme Court Judge]]>https://vaquill.com/personas/justice-sanjiv-khanna/2024-08-24T00:00:00.000Zadvertisement
“Freedom to express and speak is the most important condition for political democracy. Law and policies are not democratic unless they have been made and subjected to democratic process including questioning and criticism.”
According to seniority, Justice Sanjiv Khanna is set to become the 51st Chief Justice of India in November 2024, after the tenure of Hon’ble CJI D.Y. Chandrachud. He will serve for seven months.
Justice Sanjiv Khanna was born on May 14, 1960. His father, Justice Dev Raj Khanna, was a former judge of the Delhi High Court. Sanjiv went to a well-known school in Delhi called Modern School, Barakhamba Road. He graduated from the University of Delhi in 1980 and then studied law at the Campus Law Centre at the same university.
advertisement
Charting a Path from Advocate to Supreme Court Judge.
Justice Sanjiv Khanna became a lawyer in 1983 when he joined the Bar Council of Delhi. He started working in the District Courts at Tis Hazari in Delhi and then moved to the Delhi High Court. He worked on many different types of cases, including public law, tax appeals, business disputes, and environmental laws.
Justice Khanna handled medical negligence and company law cases. He also worked as an extra public prosecutor for the Delhi government in criminal cases. For almost seven years, he was the Income Tax Department's senior lawyer.
In 2004, he became the Government of Delhi's standing counsel at the Delhi High Court. On June 24, 2005, he got promoted to Additional Judge of the Delhi High Court and became a Permanent Judge on February 20, 2006.
A five-member Supreme Court Collegium, led by Chief Justice of India, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, suggested that Justice Maheshwari and Justice Khanna get promoted to the Supreme Court.
This decision came after a meeting on December 12, 2018, where they also considered Delhi High Court Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Rajasthan High Court Chief Justice Pradeep Nandrajog for promotion.
advertisement
Notable Judgments by Justice Sanjiv Khanna: Shaping India's Legal Landscape.
In 2024, a five-judge panel ruled that the Electoral Bond Scheme was unconstitutional. Justice Khanna agreed with this decision and wrote that the privacy of donors is not an issue when donations are made through banks. He explained that the bank knows the donor’s identity when they buy the bond. Justice Khanna also said that while it’s wrong to punish or harm donors, this does not justify a scheme that takes away voters' right to know who is donating.
In 2023, Justice Khanna wrote an agreement in a five-judge panel decision that supported the removal of Article 370. He explained that Article 370 was a part of asymmetric federalism, not a sign of sovereignty, and that removing it does not harm India's federal structure.
Further added that “Article 370 was enacted as a transitional provision and did not have permanent character. The abrogation of Article 370 does not negate the federal structure, as the citizens living in Jammu and Kashmir do and will enjoy same status and rights as given to citizens residing in other parts of the country”
A seven-judge panel, including Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, decided that an agreement without a stamp is not acceptable under the Indian Stamp Act of 1899, but it is not completely invalid from the start. This means that arbitration clauses in agreements that are unstamped or not properly stamped can still be enforced. Justice Khanna wrote in agreement with this judgment.
The five judges on the Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and his crew, including Justices NV Ramana, Dr. DY Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta, and Sanjiv Khanna, all agreed with the Delhi High Court's big decision from way back in 2010. That decision said that even the Chief Justice of India's office has to follow the Right to Information Act. So, they basically said that the Chief Justice of India's office is like any other government office when it comes to giving out information to the public.
The two judges, Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Dutta, who make up the Division Bench, came out with separate but similar decisions. They said no to the requests for a 100% cross-check of Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips with votes cast using Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) during elections. Here's what they said:
After the VVPATs are loaded with symbols on or after May 1, 2024, those loaded units have to be sealed in a box and put away in a safe room along with the EVMs for at least 45 days after the election results are out.
If candidates who came in second or third want to, a team of engineers will look at the burnt memory in the EVMs' microcontroller after the results are announced.
The candidates who ask for the verification have to pay for it. But if it's found that the EVMs were messed with, those costs will be given back.
The final decision expected to affect the ED's arrest powers significantly. Kejriwal was challenging the legality of his arrest and detention through his plea to the Supreme Court. During the hearing, the bench led by Justice Khanna mentioned they would make a ruling on Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which relates to the ED's arrest authority. On October 30 of the previous year, Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti denied bail to former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in the Excise policy case.
However, the bench allowed him to apply for bail in a lower court if his trial was delayed. The same bench granted bail to Benoy Babu, an executive of the liquor company Pernod Ricard, in December 2023. A few months later, on March 22, 2024, the day after Kejriwal's arrest, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, MM Sundresh, and Bela M Trivedi denied relief to BRS (Bharat Rashtra Samithi) legislator K Kavitha in the same case.
While refusing her request, Justice Khanna said, “All of us, in principle, agree that we should not, merely because there is a political person or somebody who can directly afford to come to the Supreme Court, bypass all the statutory and constitutional values.”
Justice Sanjeev Khanna’s Elevation: A Look at the Controversial Opinions
People are wondering why the Collegium took the names of two judges off the list they were considering and then changed their minds.
Some legal experts called the situation "selective" when Justice Khanna sat on the Bench with Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi. They pointed out that the Collegium had recommended Justice K.M. Joseph for the Supreme Court even though other judges were more senior. They asked why the same couldn't happen for Justice Khanna, who was ranked 33rd in the seniority list of high court judges.
advertisement
A nine-judge Bench in the 1998 ‘Special Reference Case’ ruled that “merit is the predominant consideration” for Supreme Court appointments. The court stated that “strong cogent reasons” should be provided when appointing a judge who is junior to others.
The court emphasized that if someone has outstanding merit, they deserve to be appointed, even if they are not highly ranked in the seniority list.
However, the concerns raised by former Chief Justices R.M. Lodha and K.G. Balakrishnan goes beyond just supersession (the act of replacing something, especially something older or more old-fashioned).
So, the Collegium made a proposal on December 12, 2018, to recommend two High Court Chief Justices, Rajendra Menon and Pradeep Nandrajog, for Supreme Court appointments. But guess what? They changed their minds later and picked Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Khanna instead.
Some folks were like, "Hey, what gives? Why the sudden switch?" Well, apparently, there were a few reasons. Some said there were unauthorized media leaks and "additional materials" that came to light. Others mentioned the winter break and a change in the Collegium's makeup when Justice Madan B. Lokur retired.
The Chief Justice has the final say in these Supreme Court appointment recommendations, you know. And on January 10, 2019, the Collegium resolution explained that they made some decisions on December 12, 2019, but couldn't consult further due to the winter break. When the court reopened, Justice Arun Mishra joined the Collegium, and they had discussions on January 5-6, 2019. That's when they took a fresh look at the situation based on some new information they got.
Oh, and by the way, there's this Special Reference case from 1998 that says if a Collegium judge retires during the appointment process and they decide not to appoint a candidate, they should give their reasons to the new Collegium.
advertisement
Did You Know? Lesser-Known Facts About Justice Sanjeev Khanna.
Justice Sanjiv Khanna has never served as Chief Justice of any High Court. Before his appointment to the Supreme Court, he was a Judge of the Delhi High Court. Justice Khanna was directly promoted to the Supreme Court from the Delhi High Court, which is quite rare. Since 1997, only six judges have been directly elevated from their parent High Court. These judges are S Abdul Nazeer, Ranjana Prakash Desai, Lokeshwar Singh Panta, G P Mathur, Ruma Pal, and S.S. Quadri.
In a rare coincidence, Justice Sanjiv Khanna started his first day as a Supreme Court Judge in the same courtroom where his uncle, the late Justice H.R. Khanna, had his last day before retirement.
Justice Sanjiv Khanna stepped aside from hearing Sajjan Kumar's appeal in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots case. He had previously dismissed Kumar's bail request in the Delhi High Court in 2015.
Ruthvik Nayaka is a final year law student, his interests lie in areas including, but not limited to, Corporate Law and taxation law. He is also the EN-ROADS Climate Ambassador. He facilitates climate-workshops, climate action simulation games and group meetings.
]]>Ruthvik Nayaka<![CDATA[Justice Dipak Misra - An Architect of Notable Jurisprudence]]>https://vaquill.com/personas/justice-dipak-mishra/2024-08-11T00:00:00.000ZJustice Dipak Misra is a distinguished Indian jurist who served as the 45th Chief Justice of India (CJI) from August 28, 2017, to October 2, 2018. Born on October 3, 1953, in Odisha, he comes from a family with a strong legal background—his uncle, Ranganath Misra, was also a Chief Justice of India.
During his tenure as a Supreme Court judge and later as the CJI, Justice Dipak Misra played a crucial role in delivering several landmark judgments. His tenure is marked by significant rulings that have had a profound impact on Indian society and jurisprudence.
He also made efforts to reform and modernize the Indian judiciary, including advocating for the use of technology in court processes. His judicial philosophy emphasized the protection of fundamental rights, social justice, and the upholding of constitutional morality.
During his tenure as a Supreme Court judge and later as the CJI, Justice Dipak Misra presided over several landmark cases, including those related to the constitutionality of Aadhar Act, decriminalization of homosexuality, and Women’s Rights.
Justice Dipak Misra was born on October 3, 1953, in the state of Odisha, India. He comes from a family with a strong legal background. His uncle, Ranganath Misra was a prominent figure in the Indian judiciary and also served as the Chief Justice of India, which likely influenced Dipak Misra's own path in law.
He pursued his education in Odisha, where he completed his schooling and higher education. He went on to study law, earning his law degree from Madhusudan Law College in Cuttack, Odisha. This solid educational foundation in law set the stage for his future career in the Indian judiciary.
His early life was shaped by his interest in law and justice, which was further nurtured by the legal environment in his family. This early exposure and education played a crucial role in his eventual rise to becoming one of India's most respected jurists and the Chief Justice of India.
Academic Career: Justice Misra began his judicial career as a lawyer, practicing in various courts, including the Odisha High Court and the Supreme Court of India. His dedication and skill in legal matters led to his appointment as an Additional Judge of the Orissa High Court in 1996. Before his appointment as the CJI, he also served as the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court and the Delhi High Court. His appointment to the Supreme Court of India came in 2011.
Chief Justice of India (2017-2018): Justice Misra was appointed as 45th Chief Justice of India on August 28, 2017.
Retirement Date: Justice Dipak Misra retired on October 2, 2018, after serving as the Chief Justice of India for just over a year.
Succession: After his retirement, Justice Ranjan Gogoi assumed the office as 46th Chief Justice of India.
advertisement
JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA’S NOTABLE JUDGEMENTS AND DECISIONS
The Aadhar Act, which created a system for issuing a unique identification number (Aadhaar) to every Indian resident, was challenged in the Supreme Court on several grounds. People were concerned that making Aadhaar mandatory for accessing various services and benefits would violate their privacy and other constitutional rights.
The big question was if the Aadhaar Act went against the right to keep things private and if it was okay to make Aadhaar a must-have for things like opening a bank account or getting a phone connection.
In 2018, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, including Justice Dipak Misra, gave a ruling on this case. The court upheld the constitutionality of the Aadhaar Act. This means the law itself was found to be valid under the Indian Constitution.
The court ruled that Aadhaar could be mandatory for accessing certain government services and subsidies, like welfare benefits. This was because it helped ensure that these benefits reached the right people and prevented fraud.
But the court also said that you don't have to have Aadhaar to do things like open a bank account, get a mobile phone, or enroll in school. For these services, people could not be forced to provide their Aadhaar number.
The ruling struck a balance between allowing the government to use Aadhaar for important purposes while protecting individual privacy. It allowed Aadhaar to be used for delivering government benefits but prevented its mandatory use in areas that could infringe on personal privacy.
A bunch of people, including activists and groups fighting for LGBTQ+ rights, took the law known as Section 377 to the Supreme Court, saying it went against the constitution. Section 377 was an old law from way back in 1861, when the British ruled India. It criminalized "unnatural offenses," which included consensual homosexual acts between adults. Essentially, this law made it illegal for same-sex couples to engage in intimate relationships, with punishments that could include imprisonment for up to life.
As society progressed, many people began to see Section 377 as outdated and unfair. They argued that the law was discriminatory and went against the principles of the Indian Constitution.
In 2018, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, delivered a landmark judgment on this issue. The court ruled that Section 377 was unconstitutional and decriminalized consensual sexual acts between adults of the same sex. This means that the court decriminalized homosexuality, allowing same-sex couples to engage in consensual relationships without fear of legal consequences.
The court emphasized that every individual, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the right to equality, dignity, and privacy under the Indian Constitution. The judgment recognized that LGBTQ+ individuals deserve the same rights and freedoms as everyone else.
The court acknowledged that the LGBTQ+ community had been unfairly treated and marginalized for decades. By reading down Section 377, the judgment marked a significant step forward in the fight for LGBTQ+ rights in India.
The Supreme Court, in a judgment led by Justice Misra, struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized adultery. The court held that the law was archaic (very old fashioned) and violated the constitutional rights to equality and privacy.
The Supreme Court, with Justice Dipak Misra leading the bench, decided that this law was outdated and unfair. The court ruled that Section 497 violated the Constitution, which guarantees equality and privacy to all citizens.
By striking down Section 497, the court emphasized that marriage should be based on mutual respect and equality, and that the law should not discriminate based on gender.
The Constitution Bench noted: ‘Prima facie, on a perusal of Section 497 of IPC, we find that it grants relief to the wife by treating her as a victim. It is also worthy to note that when an offence is committed by both of them, one is liable for the criminal offence, but the other is absolved. Ordinarily, the criminal law proceeds on gender neutrality, but in this provision, as we perceive, the said concept is absent.’
However, it was confirmed that decriminalization of adultery will not be applied for the members of the armed forces. The armed forces in India operate under a separate legal framework, including the Army Act, the Air Force Act, and the Navy Act. These Acts contain provisions that maintain discipline and order within the military, which are crucial for its functioning.
Justice Misra was drawn into controversy over a case involving alleged corruption in the approval of medical colleges. A petition was filed in the Supreme Court seeking an investigation into the alleged bribery, and there were questions about the role of the judiciary in handling the matter.
It was alleged that attempts were made to influence the judiciary, including the Supreme Court, to secure favourable outcomes for these medical colleges. This raised serious concerns about the integrity of the judicial process. A petition was filed in the Supreme Court, asking for an investigation into the alleged bribery and corruption. The petition specifically mentioned that an investigation was needed to ensure that the judiciary had not been compromised.
Justice Dipak Misra found himself at the center of this controversy because the allegations indirectly touched upon cases that had been handled by benches he was part of. Some critics argued that since he was indirectly connected to the cases in question, there was a potential conflict of interest.
Justice Misra, as the Chief Justice of India, headed the bench that heard the petition. The bench dismissed the petition, ruling that there was no need for an independent investigation. This decision was controversial because some people believed that another judge should have handled the case, given Justice Misra’s potential connection to it.
Justice Misra faced an impeachment motion initiated by several opposition parties in Parliament. The motion accused him of various charges, including "misuse of authority" and "misconduct."
An impeachment motion is a formal process through which a judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court in India can be removed from office. This can only happen if the judge is found guilty of "proved misbehaviour" or "incapacity." It's a rare and serious procedure, requiring a detailed process in Parliament.
Allegations against him included that he used his position to favour certain parties in cases. Accusations that he was involved in inappropriate activities or decisions that brought disrepute to the judiciary. The opposition pointed out that sensitive cases were allegedly being assigned to certain judges, which they believed could undermine the fairness of the judicial process.
The Vice President carefully examined the charges listed in the petition. After reviewing the allegations, he decided to reject the motion. He stated that the charges were not substantial enough to permit an impeachment process.
Since the Vice President rejected the motion, the impeachment process did not move forward. Justice Misra continued to serve as the Chief Justice of India until his retirement later that year.
During his tenure, there were allegations that the Supreme Court under Justice Misra was engaging in "judicial overreach," meaning that the court was accused of intervening in matters that some believed should be handled by the legislature or executive branches of government.
For example, some saw the court's decisions on issues like the ban on firecrackers during Diwali or the national anthem in cinemas as examples of the judiciary getting involved in matters of policy rather than law.
Various legal organizations, including bar associations and law universities, felicitated Justice Misra for his contributions to the judiciary. He was often invited to speak at legal conferences, seminars, and public forums where he was honoured for his service.
Some educational institutions invited Justice Misra to deliver lectures and be part of their academic activities. Although specific honorary degrees or titles are not widely documented, his involvement in academic and legal education was recognized and appreciated by these institutions.
One of Justice Misra’s significant contributions was his push for the live streaming of Supreme Court proceedings, particularly in cases of constitutional importance. This move was hailed as a step towards greater transparency and accountability in the judiciary.
Justice Dipak Misra's tenure as CJI was marked by both landmark judgments and significant controversies. While he made important contributions to the Indian legal system, his time in office also highlighted internal tensions within the judiciary and sparked debates about the role of the Supreme Court in Indian society.
A Delhi University graduate and a 1st Year Law Student, gaining experiences in areas under General Corporate, litigation and Intellectual Property Rights.
]]>Shubhankar Krishnan<![CDATA[Justice Ranjan Gogoi - A legacy of Landmark Judgements and Judicial Leadership]]>https://vaquill.com/personas/justice-ranjan-gogoi/2024-08-10T00:00:00.000Zadvertisement
Former Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi is a prominent Indian jurist who served as the 46th Chief Justice of India. Born on November 18, 1954, in Assam, he pursued a career in law and became a respected judge. Justice Gogoi is well-known for delivering several significant judgments during his tenure, including those on the Ayodhya Land Dispute Case and the Rafale Fighter Jet Deal.
He is also recognized for his strong stance on judicial independence and efforts to improve the efficiency of the Indian judiciary. After retiring from the Supreme Court, he was nominated to the Rajya Sabha, India's upper house of Parliament.
advertisement
Justice Gogoi was known for his focus on clearing pending cases and improving the functioning of the judiciary. He emphasized transparency and accountability within the judicial system and took steps to address issues such as the backlog of cases. Link for the article can be found here - Decreasing of pendency in cases.
advertisement
He also emphasized the need for greater transparency in the judicial appointment process and was involved in initiatives to improve the working conditions and infrastructure of the judiciary.
His tenure was not without controversies. He faced criticism for handling certain cases, including accusations of sexual harassment, which he denied and was subsequently cleared of by an in-house committee. His nomination to the Rajya Sabha shortly after retirement also sparked debates about the independence of the judiciary.
Justice Ranjan Gogoi was born on November 18, 1954, in Dibrugarh, Assam, a state in north-eastern India. He came from a prominent family; his father, Kesab Chandra Gogoi , was a former Chief Minister of Assam, which gave Ranjan an early exposure to public service and leadership.
advertisement
For his education, Gogoi attended Don Bosco School in Dibrugarh, known for its discipline and academic rigor. He later moved to Delhi to pursue higher studies. He completed his Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in History from St. Stephen's College , a prestigious institution known for its rich academic tradition.
His early education and background provided a strong foundation for his future career in the legal field. He was known to be diligent and hardworking, traits that served him well in his legal studies and later as a judge. This solid educational background and early exposure to public life helped shape his career path in the judiciary.
Alma Mater: Faculty of Law, University of Delhi (LL. B)
Academic Background: He graduated with Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in History, St. Stephen's College, Delhi. Completed his LLB from University of Delhi and began his legal practice in the Guwahati High Court in 1978, focusing on constitutional, taxation, and company matters. His dedication and expertise led to his appointment as a permanent judge of the Guwahati High Court in February 2001.
Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court (2011-2012): He was appointed the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in February 2011. During his tenure, he focused on improving the efficiency of the court and reducing case backlogs.
Chief Justice of India (2018-2019): Justice Gogoi was appointed as the 46th Chief Justice of India on October 3, 2018.
Retirement Date: Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi retired on November 17, 2019.
Succession: After his retirement, Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde assumed the position of 47th Chief Justice of India.
This was one of the most awaited and significant cases in India's legal history. The dispute was over a piece of land in Ayodhya, claimed by both Hindus and Muslims. The court, under Justice Gogoi's leadership, delivered a unanimous decision (without any opposing view).
On November 9, 2019, a 5-judge bench, including Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, ruled that the disputed land should be handed over to a trust, which would manage the construction of a Hindu temple at the site. This decision was based on the belief and evidence presented that the site was considered holy by Hindus.
The court also directed the government to provide 5 acres of alternative land in Ayodhya for the construction of a mosque. This was to compensate the Muslim community and to ensure peaceful coexistence.
The verdict aimed to resolve a long-standing and contentious issue peacefully. The decision was carefully crafted to address the concerns of both communities, promoting harmony and understanding.
The judgement was widely accepted by the parties involved and by the general public, despite some initial tensions.
The Rafale deal involved the purchase of 36 Rafale fighter jets from France, meant to strengthen the Indian Air Force. The deal became controversial, with allegations of corruption and favouritism. The Supreme Court of India received petitions requesting an investigation into the deal. Petitioners questioned the government's transparency and decision-making process.
In December 2018, a bench of the Supreme Court, including Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, dismissed the petitions. The court found that there was no evidence of wrongdoing in the decision-making process for the deal.
It ruled that the pricing aspect had been appropriately considered and that the government had followed the required procedures. The court stated that the selection of the Indian offset partner (Indian Manufacturing Company) was not under judicial review and that the government's choice did not show any signs of favouritism.
The judgement was seen as a clean chit to the government, affirming that there was no corruption or procedural mistakes.
Justice Ranjan Gogoi, being an Assamese himself, took a special interest in the NRC process. As a judge of the Supreme Court, he played a critical role in overseeing and supervising the entire exercise to ensure it was conducted fairly and transparently.
The NRC aimed to identify Indian citizens and weed out illegal immigrants in the state. The process was controversial and complex, but it was seen as an important step in addressing immigration issues in the region.
Justice Gogoi, during the process, assured that the Supreme Court would monitor the NRC update closely to ensure it was done fairly and without bias. His involvement was crucial in maintaining the integrity and credibility of the process.
The tradition of excluding women of certain ages was challenged in court on the grounds of gender discrimination and violation of fundamental rights. The case reached the Supreme Court of India, where a five-judge bench, including Justice Ranjan Gogoi, examined the issue.
The Sabarimala Temple, located in the state of Kerala, India, is a prominent Hindu pilgrimage site dedicated to Lord Ayyappa. For many years, the temple had a tradition that barred women of menstruating age (approximately 10 to 50 years old) from entering.
On September 28, 2018, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgement allowing women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala Temple. The court ruled that the practice of excluding women based on their age and biological condition was discriminatory. It violated the constitutional principles of gender equality and the right to worship. Article 25
Justice Gogoi and his fellow judges argued that devotion could not be related to gender discrimination and that religious beliefs must not interfere with constitutional principles.
Prashant Bhushan, a senior lawyer and activist in India, posted two tweets in 2020 that were critical of the judiciary, specifically the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of India. The tweets expressed concerns about the functioning of the judiciary and alleged that the current leadership was undermining its independence and integrity.
The Supreme Court took Suo Motu (on its own motion) notice of these tweets and initiated contempt of court proceedings against Bhushan. Contempt of court refers to actions that disrespect or insult the authority and dignity of the court, potentially affecting the administration of justice.
In August 2020, a bench of the Supreme Court, including Justice Ranjan Gogoi, found Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt of court. The court acknowledged the importance of freedom of speech, a fundamental right in India. However, it also emphasized that this freedom is not absolute and must be balanced with the respect and dignity of the judiciary.
The court fined Bhushan one rupee as punishment, with a warning that failure to pay would result in three months in jail and a three-year ban from practicing law.
CONTROVERSIES: FAVOURITISM AND ALLEGED MISCONDUCT
1. Scrutiny Over Key Judgements:Ayodhya and Rafale Cases
Justice Ranjan Gogoi's involvement in the Ayodhya and Rafale cases drew significant attention. In the Ayodhya verdict, the Supreme Court decided in favour of building a Hindu temple at the disputed site, while allotting land for a mosque elsewhere. This decision was seen by many as a careful balance, but it also faced criticism from some quarters for potentially favouring one community over another.
In the Rafale deal case, the Supreme Court upheld the government's purchase of fighter jets, dismissing allegations of corruption. Critics questioned whether the judiciary had adequately investigated the details of the deal, particularly the pricing and selection of the Indian offset partner. They argued that the court's decision might have been too lenient on the government.
These high-profile cases led to discussions about the judiciary's relationship with the executive branch. Some critics felt that the court's decisions might have been influenced by political considerations, especially given the timing of the judgements and Justice Gogoi's subsequent and sudden nomination to the Rajya Sabha.
Shortly after his retirement, Justice Gogoi was nominated to the Rajya Sabha, India's upper house of Parliament. This appointment was controversial, as many critics argued that it could compromise the independence of the judiciary.
The timing of the nomination, so soon after his retirement, led to concerns about the ethics of such a transition from the judiciary to the legislature. It gave rise to suspicions that his judicial rulings might have been influenced by potential post-retirement benefits.
The judiciary is expected to be impartial and free from political influence. Justice Gogoi's acceptance of the Rajya Sabha seat raised concerns that it could undermine public confidence in the judiciary's independence, as it created a perception that judicial roles might lead to political rewards.
In 2019, Justice Gogoi faced accusations of sexual harassment from a former Supreme Court employee. The allegations led to an in-house investigation committee, which ultimately cleared him of any wrongdoing.
A panel of judges, including women judges, was formed to examine the allegations. The committee conducted a closed-door inquiry and eventually cleared Justice Gogoi of any wrongdoing, stating that there was no substance to the allegations.
The investigation faced criticism for lacking transparency. The hearings were held in private, and the report of the committee was not made public. This led to concerns about the fairness and impartiality of the process.
Additionally, in response to sexual misconduct allegations, Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi convened a special bench headed by himself, which violated established legal principles of due process and natural justice. Proper procedure for addressing workplace sexual harassment should have involved the senior-most Supreme Court judge forming an independent Internal Complaints Committee, in line with existing laws (Prevention of Sexual Harrassment, POSH), and ensuring the committee could operate without fear or favor, efficiently and swiftly. In this case, these steps were not followed.
The controversy highlighted challenges within the judicial system regarding addressing allegations against high-ranking officials. It sparked discussions on how the judiciary handles such sensitive issues and the need for a more transparent and independent process.
As Chief Justice of India and after his retirement, Justice Ranjan Gogoi received various awards and recognitions for his contributions to the judiciary and public service. He is primarily recognized for his role in delivering landmark judgements and his efforts to improve the judicial system in India.
Justice Ranjan Gogoi was conferred with Assam Baibhav in 2023, highest civilian award in the state of Assam. It was conferred upon Justice Gogoi for his significant contributions to the legal field and his impactful role in delivering landmark judgements, such as the Ayodhya verdict.
advertisement
In 2024, he was honoured with the UKILP Lifetime Achievement Award by the UK-India Legal Partnership. This prestigious award recognizes his extensive contributions to the legal profession, both in the public and private spheres. The award ceremony took place at the House of Lords in London, underscoring the international recognition of his work.
These awards highlight Justice Gogoi's influential career and his significant impact on the judiciary, both within India and internationally. They also acknowledge his leadership and dedication to upholding justice throughout his career. Overall, he left behind a mixed legacy of significant achievements and some debated actions.
A Delhi University graduate and a 1st Year Law Student, gaining experiences in areas under General Corporate, litigation and Intellectual Property Rights.
]]>Shubhankar Krishnan<![CDATA[Justice DY Chandrachud: Championing Justice in Indias Supreme Court]]>https://vaquill.com/personas/justice-dy-chandrachud/2024-06-26T00:00:00.000ZD.Y. Chandrachud is one of the most famous Chief Justices of India. The full name of the 50th Chief Justice of India is Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud. He is known for standing up for what he believes is right, even if others disagree. He has made many important decisions and is working to make the government more open and honest.
He is the son of Y.V. Chandrachud, and Prabha Chandrachud. His father was the 16th Chief Justice of India, and his mom was a singer at All India Radio.. D.Y. Chandrachud became the Chief Justice in November 2022 and will retire in November 2024. During his time as Chief Justice, he has been involved in major cases like the Ram Janmabhoomi dispute, changes to Article 370, and same-sex marriage.
D.Y. Chandrachud was born in Pune into a Marathi Brahmin family (Deshastha Rigvedi Brahmin). He went to school in Mumbai(Cathedral and John Connon School, Mumbai) and Delhi(St. Columba’s School, Delhi). After finishing school, he studied Economics and Mathematics at St. Stephen’s College in Delhi. Then, he studied law at Delhi University and graduated in 1982.
In '83, he jetted off to Harvard Law School in the US and scored a Master's degree in law. He stayed at Harvard until 1986 to complete his Doctorate, where he studied affirmative action (Doctoral Thesis). After finishing his studies, he became a lawyer and joined the Bar Council of Maharashtra.
Date and Place of Birth: Born on 11 November 1959 in Bombay, Bombay State, India (present-day Mumbai, Maharashtra).
Present Age: As of 2024, Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud is 64 years old.
Spouse(s): He was married to Rashmi Chandrachud, who unfortunately passed away in 2007 due to cancer. He is currently married to Kalpana Das, a lawyer.
Family:
Father: Y. V. Chandrachud
Sons: Abhinav Chandrachud and Chintan Chandrachud
Daughters: Priyanka and Mahi (foster daughters)
Education and Qualifications:
Alma Mater: University of Delhi (BA, LLB), Harvard University (LLM, SJD)
Academic Background: He graduated with a BA in Economics Honours from St. Stephen's College, New Delhi. He then completed his LLB from Campus Law Centre, Delhi University in 1982. Later, he obtained his LLM degree and a Doctorate in Juridical Sciences (SJD) from Harvard Law School, USA in 1986.
Retirement Date: Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud is set to retire on November 10, 2024.
Succession: After his retirement, Justice Sanjiv Khanna will assume the position of Chief Justice of India, serving from November 11, 2024, to May 13, 2025.
After studying law at Delhi University, D.Y. Chandrachud worked as a junior lawyer, helping other lawyers and judges. He also worked with the well-known lawyer Fali Nariman.
After graduating from Harvard, he briefly worked at a law firm (Sullivan & Cromwell LLP) in the United States. He then returned to India and practiced law at the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court of India.
So, in 1998, he became a senior lawyer and got the cool title of Additional Solicitor General of India. Then, in March 2000, he became a judge at the Bombay High Court. Not only that, but he also served as the director of the Maharashtra Judicial Academy.
On 31st October 2013, he became the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, where he served for almost three years. On 13 March 2016, he was promoted to the Supreme Court of India. Since 2021, he has been part of a group of senior judges that decides on the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts.
On 9 November 2022, D.Y. Chandrachud was appointed as the 50th Chief Justice of India.
In the 2017 case led by Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, a group of nine judges, including Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, agreed that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. Justice Chandrachud wrote a key part of this judgment, strongly criticizing an earlier 2014 decision that had ruled against LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) rights.
He made it clear that LGBT rights are real and protected by the Constitution, and that privacy and sexual freedom are essential to personal identity and dignity. In his judgment, Justice Chandrachud also criticized a 1976 case decision that his own father had been a part of, calling it “seriously flawed.”
This was a notable moment, as it showed a shift in the understanding of fundamental rights. To quote from the judgment “Dignity cannot exist without privacy. Both reside within the inalienable values of life, liberty and freedom which the Constitution has recognised. Privacy is the ultimate expression of the sanctity of the individual. It is a constitutional value which straddles across the spectrum of fundamental rights and protects for the individual a zone of choice and self. Determination.”
While giving the judgment, Justice Chandrachud emphasized that this case was not just about changing a law, but about recognizing the equal rights and existence of the LGBT community, just like any other citizens.
In 2019, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud dropped a bomb of a judgment in the case of (Indibility Creative Pvt Ltd v. State of West Bengal). He smacked the West Bengal government with a fine and ordered them to pay compensation for blocking the screening of a political satire movie called ‘Bhobishyoter Bhoot’.
The Supreme Court ruled that the ban was unconstitutional because it violated the filmmakers' right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Justice Chandrachud emphasized that "free speech cannot be silenced because of the fear of how people might react."
In 2020, a case was brought to the Supreme Court about a TV show called "UPSC Jihad" on Sudarshan TV. The show suggested that Muslims were trying to secretly join India's government jobs. A group of three judges, led by Justice Chandrachud, looked into the case.
They said that while the TV channel has the right to report on important issues, it should not make hurtful comments about the entire Muslim community. The show had scenes with flames and images of Muslims in religious clothing, which the judges found offensive.
When the lawyer for Sudarshan TV argued that stopping the show would violate freedom of speech, Justice Chandrachud replied that the channel should be careful because India is a country with many different cultures. The court eventually stopped the channel from airing the remaining episodes of the show.
In 2022, the Supreme Court made an important decision in the case of Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal. The court expanded the definition of "family" to include different types of relationships, like unmarried couples or same-sex partnerships.
A nurse named Deepika Singh wanted to take maternity leave after having her first kid. But guess what? Her workplace, PGIMER in Chandigarh, said no way! Why? Because she had already used maternity leave to take care of her husband's kids from a previous marriage. Even the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Punjab and Haryana High Court were like, "Nope, sorry, no maternity leave for you!"
A two-judge bench, including Justice Chandrachud and Justice Bopanna, ruled in favor of Deepika. They stated that different forms of families, even if they are not traditional, are just as valid and deserve legal protection. They also clarified that childcare leave and maternity leave are separate, and a woman is entitled to both.
In 2018, Justice Chandrachud made a big call when he said that Arnab Goswami, the big cheese at Republic TV, could get out of jail on bail. Arnab was in the slammer because the Mumbai police thought he had something to do with the whole suicide thing involving an interior designer named Anvay Naik and his mom. Justice Chandrachud said it's super important that we don't use those criminal laws to go after people who don't deserve it.
On September 28, 2018, the Supreme Court, in a 4-1 decision, ruled that banning women of menstrual age from entering a temple violated their fundamental rights. The majority of the judges, including former Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice A M Khanwilkar, Rohinton Nariman, and D Y Chandrachud, agreed on this decision.
However, Justice Indu Malhotra disagreed. In the famous "Sabarimala Case" Justice Chandrachud wrote that the Constitution does not allow women to be excluded from worship just because they are of menstruating age. He argued that this exclusion was an insult to women's equal rights and dignity. Excluding women from religious worship because of their natural bodily functions goes against the principles of equal citizenship.
On September 27, 2018, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, including Justice DY Chandrachud, ruled that the adultery law in India was unconstitutional. The law, known as Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, made it a crime for a man to have consensual sexual relations with another man's wife without the husband's permission.
The man could be fined or sent to jail for up to five years, but the woman was not punished. Justice Chandrachud explained that this law treated women as property of their husbands, taking away their independence. He said the law violated the principles of freedom, dignity, and equality guaranteed by the Constitution.
The court decided that adultery should not be a crime, though it could still be a valid reason for divorce. Interestingly, in 1985, Justice Chandrachud's father, who was also a Chief Justice of India, had upheld the validity of this law.
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, including Justices DY Chandrachud, JB Pardiwala, and AS Bopanna, ruled that all women, whether married or unmarried, have the right to safe and legal abortions up to 24 weeks of pregnancy.
The court said that treating married and unmarried women differently under abortion laws is unfair and unconstitutional. In this important decision, Justice Chandrachud also recognized that marital rape, where a husband forces his wife to have sex, is a crime. The court affirmed that women have the right to an abortion even in such cases.
In a landmark 2020 decision, the Supreme Court, led by Justices DY Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi, ordered the government to grant permanent commissions to women officers in the Army, ending gender bias. The court emphasized the importance of equality, stating that outdated stereotypes, like men being dominant and women being primary caretakers, need to change.
This ruling was based on a case filed by advocate Babita Puniya in 2003, who argued that female officers should have the same opportunities as their male counterparts.
The court's decision also addressed the Army's discriminatory promotion practices, ensuring that women officers could hold command positions. Soon after, Justice Chandrachud also ruled in favor of women sailors in the Indian Navy, granting them similar rights. This decision was widely recognized for advancing gender equality in the military.
In a landmark decision, Justice DY Chandrachud ruled that a husband's forced sexual act on his wife can be considered rape. He explained that the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act recognizes a husband's act of sexual assault or forced intercourse with his wife as 'rape'. This ruling acknowledges that even within a marriage, a woman has the right to say no and that her consent matters.
In the Hadiya case (Shafin Jahan v Ashokan K.M.), the Supreme Court decided that Hadiya (formerly Akhila Ashokan) and Shafin Jehan's marriage was valid, even though Hadiya's family challenged it. The case was widely discussed in the media as an example of "love jihad." Justice Chandrachud supported Hadiya's right to choose her own religion and marriage partner.
He emphasized that adults have the right to make their own decisions about marriage and religion as part of their personal privacy.
In October 2023, the Supreme Court of India decided not to legally recognize same-sex marriages. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, while announcing the decision, said that making laws is the job of Parliament, not the courts. He mentioned that only Parliament can change the Special Marriage Act to include same-sex marriages.
However, Justice Chandrachud did rule against a regulation by the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) that prevented queer and unmarried couples from adopting children. Despite this, the Supreme Court, in a 3:2 decision, still denied queer couples the right to adopt children.
In October 2022, a complaint was filed against Justice DY Chandrachud by Rashid Khan Pathan and two others, accusing him of misusing his position. They claimed that Justice Chandrachud had made decisions in a case that was supposedly related to another case where his son appeared in the Bombay High Court.
Rashid Khan Pathan, who claimed to lead a group called the 'Supreme Court and High Court Litigant Association,' sent the complaint to the President of India and others. The Bar Council of India (BCI) supported Justice Chandrachud and condemned the complaint, calling it a "deliberate attempt to malign the Indian judiciary."
Justice DY Chandrachud's legacy is characterized by his commitment to modernizing the judiciary and enhancing access to justice through technology. He has been instrumental in pioneering the use of virtual court hearings, a significant transformation that gained momentum during the COVID-19 pandemic.
His leadership in this area ensured the continuity of judicial proceedings despite the nationwide lockdown, thereby preventing the backlog of cases and ensuring timely justice. This move not only underscored his forward-thinking approach but also set a precedent for future judicial processes in India to incorporate technological advancements.
His decisions often reflected a deep understanding of the socio-economic realities of the country, aiming to make the law more accessible and equitable for all citizens, particularly marginalized communities.
Justice Chandrachud's tenure is also marked by his focus on legal education and mentorship. He has consistently engaged with law students and young lawyers, encouraging them to think critically about the law and its role in society. His lectures and writings have inspired a new generation of legal professionals to pursue justice with integrity and empathy.
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud has received numerous awards and recognition for his exemplary contributions to law and justice. During his academic years, he was awarded an Inlaks Scholarship, which is offered to Indian citizens pursuing graduate education abroad, highlighting his early promise and dedication to legal studies.
Furthermore, his contributions to legal education and mentorship have been widely acknowledged, as he has played a pivotal role in nurturing the next generation of legal professionals through various initiatives and programs. These accolades not only celebrate his legal acumen but also his dedication to fostering a more just and equitable society.
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud's career is a testament to his unwavering commitment to justice, equality, and legal reform. From his early academic achievements to his significant rulings as the Chief Justice of India, he has consistently demonstrated a profound understanding of the law and its impact on society.
His leadership in modernizing the judiciary, advocating for fundamental rights, and ensuring access to justice through technology has set a benchmark for future judicial practices. His landmark judgments on issues like privacy, LGBTQ+ rights, and gender equality have reshaped the legal landscape in India, promoting a more inclusive and equitable society.
As Justice Chandrachud's tenure continues, his legacy will undoubtedly be remembered for its transformative influence on the Indian legal system and its dedication to upholding the principles of justice and human rights.
Ruthvik Nayaka is a final year law student, his interests lie in areas including, but not limited to, Corporate Law and taxation law. He is also the EN-ROADS Climate Ambassador. He facilitates climate-workshops, climate action simulation games and group meetings.
