Know Thy Judge | Supreme Court of India: Justice K.V. Viswanathan’s Legacy & Influential Judgments

Justice K.V. Viswanathan, a well-known and respected former Senior Advocate and eminent member of the Bar, started a new journey on 19-05-2023, which placed him on the other side of the equation — the Bench.

*Did you Know? Justice K.V. Viswanathan is the 10th advocate to be directly elevated as Supreme Court Judge¹.

Early Life and Career as an Advocate

Justice K.V. Viswanathan was born on 26-05-1966² to K.V. Venkataraman (a public prosecutor in Coimbatore). Justice KV. Viswanathan did his schooling from Pollachi Arokia Matha Matriculation School and went on to study at Sainik School Amaravathinagar and then at Udhagai Susaiyappar High School³. Furthermore, Justice Viswanathan did his five-year integrated law course at the Coimbatore Law College, Bharathiyar University and started his professional journey in 1988 by enrolling with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu.⁴ Justice Viswanathan was subsequently transferred to the roll of Delhi Bar Council.⁵

*Did you Know? During his initial years in Delhi, Justice Viswanathan stayed in a central government housing society in RK Puram Sector 1 with a friend on INR 200 monthly rent. The area had a significant Tamil population, so he had no difficulty finding a place to live. Justice Viswanathan lived near a Murugan temple in the area and used to eat at the nearby Mahalingam mess⁶.

Justice Viswanathan started working as a junior under eminent Senior Advocates K.K. Venugopal and C.S. Vaidyanathan between 1988 -1995 and after 20 years of practice, Justice Viswanathan himself was designated as a Senior Advocate in 2009⁷. In 2013, Justice Viswanathan was appointed as the Additional Solicitor General of India. Furthermore, Viswanathan has also been an eminent member of the Editorial Board of Supreme Court Cases (SCC).⁸

Notable Case appearances as a Counsel/ Amicus Curiae

During his tenure as an advocate, Justice Viswanathan appeared in a varied range of cases on diverse subjects including Constitutional law, criminal law, commercial law, the law of Insolvency, and Arbitration in the Supreme Court and High Courts. His stature as an eminent member of the Bar has been recognised by the Supreme Court in numerous cases where he was appointed to assist the Court as amicus curiae.⁹

As a Counsel

SEBI v. Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd., (2017) 15 SCC 523– Matter concerning recovery of illegal money collected by Sahara India.

Arushi Jain v. Union of India, (2020) 18 SCC 585– Matter concerning high risk exposure of doctors and medical professionals while treating Covid-19 patients.

Ravindra Shah v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 434– Matter regarding a ‘bona fide’ mistake by an Advocate-on-Record’s clerk where one of the advocates of the petitioner was recorded as “Mr. Put Mine, Advocate”.

Aam Aadmi Party v. Union of India, (2014) 16 SCC 396– Matter regarding power of Lieutenant Governor to keep State Legislative Assembly in suspended animation.

Karmanya Singh Sareen v. Union of India, (2019) 17 SCC 689– Matter concerning privacy and regulation of data protection in view of a rapid growth in digital economy.

Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India, (2018) 14 SCC 115– Matter regarding CBI investigation in Coal Block Allocation Scam.

Advocates Assn. v. Union of India, (2013) 10 SCC 611– Matter regarding demand of CBI investigation into police excesses inside court premises when a State Government minister was produced before the Court.

Union of India v. Faculty Assn. of AIIMS, (2014) 14 SCC 151– Matter regarding reservation in superspeciality posts in AIIMS.

As Amicus Curiae

Pranay Kumar Podder v. State of Tripura, (2017) 13 SCC 351– Matter regarding admission procedures and eligibility of candidates suffering from Colour Vision Deficiency (CVD) in medical colleges.

Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 130 — Matter regarding Bar Council of India’s (BCI) power to conduct pre-enrolment examination i.e. All India Bar Examination (AIBE).

Moser Baer Karamchari Union v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 547 — Matter regarding striking down Section 327(7) of the Companies Act, 2013 as arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1– Matter concerning important aspects of Anticipatory Bail like- Time limits; Points to be kept in mind by courts, dealing with applications under Section 438, CrPC.

SBI v. V. Ramakrishnan, (2018) 17 SCC 394– Matter regarding moratorium under Section 14 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Subramanian Swamy v. CBI, (2014) 8 SCC 682– Matter concerning constitutional validity of Section 6-A of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 and Section 26(c) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003.

Bar Council of India v. Twinkle Rahul Mangaonkar, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1055– Matters concerning provisional enrolment with the Bar Council of India; ethics of the legals profession; accountability of law colleges; negative marking in the Bar Exam etc.

Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (II) v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344– Matter concerning awarding of realistic costs as general rule so as to avoid frivolous litigation. In this case, Justice Viswanathan appeared as amicus curiae alongside Senior Advocate, C.S. Vaidyanathan.

From the Bar to the Bench¹⁰

The Supreme Court Collegium while deliberating over their next recommendations for elevation to the Supreme Court of India, considered the name of Justice Viswanathan. The Collegium took into consideration Justice Viswanathan’s sound understanding of law and his integrity and his wide experience and profound knowledge will provide a significant value addition to the Supreme Court. The Collegium also took note of the fact that at present there is only one Judge who was directly elevated from the Bar (Justice P.S. Narasimha), therefore, inclusion of Justice Viswanathan in the folds will enhance the representation of the Bar. Thus, on 16-05-2023, Justice Viswanathan’s name was recommended for elevation, which was expressly approved by the Law ministry on 18-05-2023¹¹ and on 19-05-2023, Justice K.V. Viswanathan started a new innings in his professional life.

*Did you Know? Justice Viswanathan is slated to become the 58th Chief Justice of India in 2030, thereby making him only the 4th lawyer who went on to become the Chief Justice after being directly elevated to the Supreme Court¹².

Notable Judgments

In Shahed Kamal v. A. Surti Developers (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 811, an appeal filed by the homebuyers against the judgment of the Bombay High Court, which had dismissed their petition seeking quashing of both the complaint and the summons in a defamation case, the Division Bench of K.V. Viswanathan* and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ., held that the right to protest peacefully without violating the law was a corresponding right that consumers ought to enjoy, just as a seller enjoys the right to commercial speech. The Court observed that any attempt to portray such protests as criminal offences, in the absence of the necessary legal ingredients, would amount to a clear abuse of process and must be curbed at the outset. Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. Consequently, the complaint pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, along with the order dated 04-10-2016 issuing summons to the homebuyers under Section 500 read with Section 34 of the IPC, was quashed and set aside.

“Homebuyers and developers have not always been the best of friends. Instances are innumerable where the two have been at daggers drawn. This case presents one such instance”

In State of Goa v. Namita Tripathi, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 480, an appeal concerning the question that whether the process of ‘Dry cleaning of clothes’ constitutes ‘manufacturing process’ as defined under the Factories Act, 1948 (‘Act of 1948’), the division bench of B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ., held that washing, cleaning, and dry-cleaning activities fall within the definition of ‘manufacturing process’ under the Factories Act, 1948, even if these processes do not result in the creation of a new tangible product. The Court further clarified that the laundry business qualifies as a ‘factory’ under Section 2(m) of the Act, 1948, provided that it employs 10 or more workers, and the laundry work is carried out with the aid of power-operated machines.

“It is very clear that Section 2(g) of the Factories Act, 1934 did not have the words ‘washing, cleaning’ and they have been specifically brought in the Factories Act, 1948 with a clear object of bringing into the fold of the Act undertakings excluded from the scope of the 1934 Act.”

In Ayyub v. State of U.P., (2025) 3 SCC 334, a criminal appeal against Allahabad High Court’s decision, whereby the High Court refused to quash the proceedings instituted against the accused for offence under Section 306 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the three Judge Bench of Sanjiv Khanna, CJI and Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan,* JJ. allowed the appeal and constituted a Special Investigation Team to reinvestigate the unnatural death of the deceased girl. The Court quashed and set aside the pending proceedings before the Trial Court.

“The alleged harassment meted out should have left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life and in cases of abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide.”

While considering the instant appeal challenging the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court declining the appellant’s prayer to discharge him from the offences punishable under Section 306 of the Penal Code, 1860 in Mahendra Awase v. State of M.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 107; the Abhay S. Oka and K.V. Viswanathan*, JJ., took strict note of casual resorting of Section 306 by the Police. The Court said that while the persons involved in genuine cases where the high threshold under Section 306 is met should not be spared; the provision should not be deployed against individuals, only to assuage the immediate feelings of the distraught family of the deceased. The conduct of the proposed accused and the deceased, their interactions and conversations preceding the unfortunate death of the deceased should be approached from a practical point of view and not divorced from day-to-day realities of life. Hyperboles employed in exchanges should not, without anything more, be glorified as an instigation to commit suicide.

“It is time the investigating agencies are sensitised to the law laid down by this Court under Section 306 so that persons are not subjected to the abuse of process of a totally untenable prosecution”

In M. Venkateswaran v. State of T.N., (2025) 3 SCC 578, a criminal appeal against Madras High Court’s decision, whereby the accused person’s conviction for offence under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (‘DP Act), was confirmed, the Division Bench of KV Viswanathan* and SVN Bhatti, JJ. partly allowed the appeal, while sustaining the conviction for the offences mentioned above. However, the Bench set aside the High Court’s decision to the extent of imposing and modifying the sentence, considering that the case went along for nearly 19 years and that the accused had already undergone custody for three months.

In K. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2643, a criminal appeal against a decision of the Madras High Court, wherein by a cryptic order, the application for further investigation in a murder case was allowed, the Division Bench of BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan*, JJ. observed that a distinction should be made between cases where there exist genuine grounds to hold up the proceedings and cases where such grounds do not exist, and termed the case as classic example of latter. Hence, allowing the appeal, the Court set aside the impugned decision. The Court stated that the impugned judgment of the High Court gave no valid justification for ordering a further investigation.

‘Even if the parties involved in a case themselves, with no valid justification attempt to delay the proceedings, the Courts need to be vigilant and nip any such attempt in the bud instantly. Pleadings with outrageous & ex facie unbelievable averments being made; Frivolous & vexatious proceedings be met with due sanctions to dissuade parties from resorting to such tactics.’

In Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2860, a civil appeal regarding the rendering of a candidate ineligible for the Persons with Disabilities (‘PwD’) reservation or for pursuing a medical course as per the National Medical Commission (‘NMC’) Gazette notification, the three judge bench of BR Gavai, Aravind Kumar and KV Viswanathan*, JJ. held that quantified disability per se will not disentitle a candidate with benchmark disability from being considered for admission to educational institutions. The candidate will be eligible if the Disability Assessment Board (‘DAB’) opines that notwithstanding the quantified disability the candidate can pursue the course in question. The NMC regulations in the notification of 13-05-2019 read with Appendix H-1 should, pending the re-formulation by NMC, be read in the light of the holdings in this judgment. Further, the Court, while setting aside the impugned order of the High Court, confirmed the admission of the appellant and directed the authorities to treat the admission as a valid admission in the eye of law.

“It should be borne in mind that the RPwD Act which was enacted to give effect to the United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities — was with the objective of granting persons with disabilities full and effective participation and inclusion in society, grant them equal opportunity and to show respect for their inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make their own choices.”

In Omkar v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2401, a special leave petition (civil) against a decision of the Bombay High Court, wherein, the petitioner’s challenge to Regulation holding persons with speech and language disability above 40 per cent to be ineligible to admission, was adjourned for three weeks, without considering his prayer for interim relief on his admission to MBBS course under ‘Persons with Disability’ category, the Division Bench of BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, JJ., coming to the aid of the student, directed the Dean of Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Government Medical College, Pune to constitute a Medical Board to examine as to whether the speech and language disability of the petitioner would come in his way of pursuing the MBBS Degree Course.

In National Medical Commission v. K.M.C.T. Medical College, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2542, a special leave petition filed against the order passed by the division bench of the Kerala High Court, wherein the Court has directed the KMCT Medical College to file an undertaking as per order dated 09-08-2024, and on receipt of such an undertaking, national Medical Commission was directed to grant permission to the Medical College, division bench of BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, JJ. viewed that the present special leave petitions are an abuse of the process of law and, therefore, dismissed the same, with cost quantified at Rs.10,00,000/- to be paid within four weeks from the date of this order.

“Making a party run from Court to Court to seek permission, specifically when the institute concerned is not a new institute and has been running for the last 18 years, is only an attempt to harass the institution. Particularly, when the approval granted earlier for the academic year 2023-2024 was withdrawn, no deficiency, except non-grant of COA, was pointed out”

In Manilal v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2457, a matter concerning the appointment for the post of Teacher, the division bench of BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan*, JJ. while setting aside the impugned order, directed the respondent-authorities to treat the appointment given to the appellant, pursuant to the interim order of the Division Bench dated 23-10-2021, as a regular appointment and after reinstating the appellant grant consequential benefits. Further, the Court clarified that except for the period the appellant actually worked, he shall not be entitled to any back wages.

“It will be improper to discriminate inter se among a homogenous group of students admitted for the academic session 2009-10. It could not be that those students admitted in the first round of counselling would be eligible, even with less than 50% marks in graduation, while the others admitted in the subsequent rounds of counselling would not be.”

While considering the instant petition wherein the Court had to consider whether the petitioner was entitled to the relief of treating the personal bond and one set of sureties already furnished as holding good, for the other bail orders as well in Girish Gandhi v. State of U.P., (2024) 10 SCC 674; the Division Bench of B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan*, JJ., took note of the petitioner’s genuine difficulty in finding multiple sureties stating that Sureties are essential to ensure the presence of the accused, released on bail. At the same time, where the Court is faced with the situation where the accused enlarged on bail is unable to find sureties, as ordered, in multiple cases, there is also a need to balance the requirement of furnishing the sureties with his or her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“An order which would protect the person’s fundamental right under Article 21 and at the same time guarantee the presence, would be reasonable and proportionate. As to what such an order should be, will again depend on the facts and circumstances of each case”.

In Prem Prakash v. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 9 SCC 787, an appeal filed against the Judgment passed by the Jharkhand High Court, wherein the Court dismissed the bail application of the accused for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’), the division bench of BR Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ. held that a statement given by an accused, while under custody in a case under the PMLA, to investigating officers of the Enforcement Directorate (‘ED’) incriminating oneself in another money laundering case would be inadmissible in evidence.

“Article 21 being a higher constitutional right, statutory provisions should align themselves to the said higher constitutional edict”

In Lalitha Kumari Singaladevi v. Srinivas Ramineni, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1882, a criminal special leave to appeal against Andhra Pradesh High Court’s decision, whereby the four-and-a-half-years child’s custody was granted to his father and the permission to take him to USA for his all-round welfare was granted, the Division Bench of Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan, JJ. allowed the appellant- mother’s appeal and stayed the operation of the High Court’s decision.

In Union of India v. Zakir Khan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2108, a batch of two petition for special leave to appeal (‘criminal’) by the State authorities/ detaining authorities against Delhi High Court’s decision, whereby the detenus’ petitions were allowed and the detention orders under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (“COFEPOSA”) were quashed, viewing that the detaining authority gravely erred in relying upon illegible documents which was equivalent to non-placement of relied upon documents (‘RUDs’), the Division Bench of BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, JJ. disposed of the SLP’s upon noting the State’s submission that by efflux of time, the question for consideration was only of academic nature. The Court said that the petitions became infructuous, however, the question of law was kept open. Hence, the Court upheld the quashing of the detention order passed against the Detenus including Customs House Agent.

In K.P. Khemka v. Haryana SIIDC, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 846, an appeal arising from the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana where the High Court dismissed the writ petitions and rejected the contention of the appellants herein that if a debt is time-barred under the Limitation Act, 1963, the same cannot be recovered by resorting to the Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 (“Recovery of Dues Act”) read with the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, a division bench comprising of Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ., referred to a three-judge Bench the question of whether time-barred debts be recovered through remedies other than civil suits as per special laws.

In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Tata Steel Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 684, an appeal challenging the NCDRC’s order partially allowing the insured’s complaint and awarding Rs. 13,15,27,000/- with 10% interest per annum, a division bench comprising of Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ., held that “the claim was rightly settled by the NIACL letter dated 03.01.2003 which determined the loss amount payable at Rs.7.88 crores after applying 60% depreciation.”

In Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. B.D. Kaushik, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 960, matter concerning the Supreme Court Bar Association (‘SCBA’) elections, the division bench of Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. has allowed the Election Committee to count votes on 16-05-2024. The result is to be declared on 19-05-2024. The Court noted that the Members of the Election Committee have suggested deleting the first line of Clause (v) of paragraph No.8 of the order dated 02-05-2024. Under this clause, the Court has directed that the counting of votes to be commence on 18-05-2024, and the result to be declared on 19-05-2024.

In Naeem Ahmed v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine SC 220, a criminal appeal filed against the order passed by the Delhi High Court, wherein the Court refused to grant of default bail to the accused under Sections 21, 29, 61 and 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’), has been turned down, the division bench of Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan, JJ. while considering the totality of the circumstances, especially the period of custody the accused underwent, the Court granted him bail subject to certain conditions.

In Ramji Lal Jat v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 217, a civil appeal against the Rajasthan High Court’s decision, whereby the appellant’s challenge against rejection of his candidature for the post of police constable on grounds of having more than two children was refused to interfere with, the three Judge Bench of Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. dismissed the appeal and upheld the Rajasthan High Court’s decision.

In Sharad Pawar v. Ajit Anantrao Pawar, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4248 of 2024, a Division Bench of Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan, JJ., questioned Ajit Pawar faction for using the pictures of former supremo of Nationalist Congress Party (‘NCP’) Sharad Pawar in their campaigning materials. The Court also directed Ajit Pawar faction to file an undertaking to reflect that they will not directly or indirectly use Sharad Pawar’s name and discussed the use of ‘clock’ symbol.

In Prabhu v. State, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 137, an appeal filed Madras High Court’s refusal to criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 417, 306 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002 (‘TNPHW Act’), the division bench of Vikram Nath and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. while setting aside the impugned judgment quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused. Further, it said that the accused, by breaking up the relationship with the deceased and by advising her to marry in accordance with the advice of her parents had not intended to abet her suicide. Hence, it held that the offence under Section 306 is not made out.

In Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 180, a civil appeal against the Allahabad High Court’s decision, the Division Bench of J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan*, JJ., allowed the appeal and held that non-disclosure of the criminal case in the verification form, which ended in acquittal, is not always fatal to the candidate’s employment. The Court said that each case will depend on the facts and circumstances, and the Court will have to take a holistic view.

In Sharad Pawar v. Ajit Anantrao Pawar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 167, an appeal against Election Commission of India’s (ECI) judgment and order dated 6-02-2024 which recognized Ajit Pawar’s faction for using Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) symbol, the Division Bench of Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ., issued notice to Ajit Pawar faction and directed continuation of operation of ECI order dated 7-02-2024 for using name “Nationalist Congress Party — Sharadchandra Pawar”.

In Hydha Muslim Welfare Masjid-e Hidaya and Madarasa v. N. Dinakaran, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 204, a special leave petition filed by Hydha Muslim Welfare trust (‘Trust’) against the Madras High Court Judgment and order dated 22-11-2023, wherein the Court directed the demolition of a mosque and Madrasa located in Koyambedu, Chennai after concluding that the structure was illegally constructed without any building sanction plan, the division bench of Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan, JJ. said that the directions issued by the High Court warrant no interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Further, it granted time to the Trust till 31-05-2024, to remove the structures.

In Radhey Shyam Yadav v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 10, an appeal against Allahabad High Court’s decision wherein the appellant-teachers’ appeal against non-payment of their salaries was dismissed, the Division Bench of J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan*, JJ., directed the State to pay the appellant teachers their unpaid salaries.

“The situation of the appellants in the present case is no different from the individuals whose appointments were protected in the cases cited hereinabove. They had no blameworthy conduct. They were bona fide applicants from the open market. The alleged mischief, even according to the State, was at the end of the School and its Manager. It will be a travesty of justice if relief is denied to the appellants. Enormous prejudice would also occur to them.”

In Vashist Narayan Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2, an appeal against Patna High Court’s decision, whereby an aspiring Police Constable’s petition to consider his appointment for the said post, as he was declared failed for an inadvertent error of wrong date of birth in the application form, was dismissed. The Division Bench of J.K Maheshwari and K.V Viswanathan*, JJ. held that the trivial error in the date of birth had no bearing on the selection and the appellant himself being oblivious of the error produced the educational certificates which reflected his correct date of birth. The Court directed the respondent-State to treat the appellant as “passed”, in the selection process with the correct date of birth as 18-12-1997.

“A reading of the prayer clause in the writ petition indicates that the appellant did pray for a mandamus directing the respondents to consider the candidature treating his date of birth as 18.12.1997 and also sought for a direction for issuance of an appointment letter. A Writ Court has the power to mould the relief. Justice cannot be forsaken on the altar of technicalities.”

In Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2024) 1 SCC 175, a writ petition seeking to quash the dismissal order and reinstatement to service, a division bench comprising J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ., held that the order of termination dated 31-03-2004; the order of the Appellate Authority dated 08-10-2004; the orders refusing to reconsider and review the penalty, are all illegal and untenable. Further. It directed for reinstatement of the constable with all consequential benefits including seniority, notional promotions, fitment of salary and all other benefits. It also awarded 50 percent of the backwages to the Constable.

“The acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge can only be arrived at after a reading of the judgment in its entirety. The court in judicial review is obliged to examine the substance of the judgment and not go by the form of expression used.”

In Rajendra Bihari Lal v. State of U.P.,¹³ a Special Leave to Appeal against the Allahabad High Court Order, whereby a FIR lodged against 7 accused persons, the Vice Chancellor (Dr.) Rajendra Bihari Lal (Baba ji), Director Vinod Bihari Lal and five other officials of the Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture Technology and Science (‘SHUATS’) for persuading a woman to adopt Christianity by offering her a job and other allurement was refused to quash, the vacation Bench of Aniruddha Bose and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ., allowed the application and granted interim protection to the accused persons against the arrest.

In Sikha Ghosh v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1609, a special leave petition challenging the Division bench judgment and order passed by Calcutta High Court, wherein the Court overturned a Single Judge judgment, and molded the relief on the issue of mesne profits while relegating the matter to the Civil Court (alternative remedy), the division bench of J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ., issued notice to the oil companies and directed them to file a counter affidavit within 6 weeks and directed the petitioners to file the rejoinder within two weeks thereafter.

In Aditya Khaitan v. IL & FS Financial Services Ltd., (2023) 9 SCC 570, appeals challenging Calcutta High Court’s dismissal of applications seeking to allow filing of written statements beyond 30 days, restricting benefit of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 19 SCC 10 and Sagufa Ahmed v. Upper Assam Plywood Products (P) Ltd., (2021) 2 SCC 317, since the limitation period for filing written statements expired on 8-03-2020, the Division Bench of J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan*, JJ. allowed the same clarifying that the suspension of limitation during further orders passed after COVID-19 lockdown was for outer limit and included period for condonation of delay.

In SBI v. A.G.D. Reddy, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1064, a civil appeal filed by the State Bank of India (‘SBI’) against the Judgment of Karnataka High Court, whereby SBI’s appeal was dismissed and confirmed the Single Judge’s order, allowing the respondent’s petition and quashed the Appointing Authority’s decision imposing a punishment of reduction of the salary of the respondent, the Division Bench of J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan*, JJ. allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the Single Judge and Division Bench. For onus of proof, the Court reiterated that

“It is well settled that, in a disciplinary proceeding, the question of burden of proof would depend upon the nature of the charge and the nature of the explanation put forward by the respondent. In a given case, the burden may be shifted to the respondent depending upon the explanation.”