Justice Dipankar Datta

No report/discussion/debate/ interview should be presented by the media which could harm the interests of the accused being investigated or a witness in the case (…) with a view to satiate the thirst of stealing a march over competitors in the field of reporting

Justice Dipankar Datta

Nilesh Navalakha v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 56,

As former Bombay High Court Chief Justice Dipankar Datta was sworn in as Supreme Court Judge by Chief Justice Dr D.Y Chandrachud on 12-12-2022, let’s look back to the trajectory of his life and career as an Advocate and in the High Courts of Calcutta and Bombay through his various decisions.

Early Life1

Born on 09-02-1965 in a family with legal background, Justice Datta is the son of a former Calcutta High Court Judge, late Justice Salil Kumar Datta and brother-in-law of former Supreme Court Judge, Justice Amitava Roy.

Education and Advocacy2

Justice Datta obtained his LL.B. degree from the Hazra Law College, University of Calcutta in 1989 and was in the first batch of the 5- year law course. He was enrolled as an Advocate on 16-11-1989. He worked as a Counsel for the Union of India since 1998 and as a Junior Standing Counsel for the State of West Bengal for two years.


He also served as a Judge of the Calcutta High Court from 22-06-06 to 27-04-20. Thereafter, he was elevated as the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court. He was further elevated as a Judge of Supreme Court on 12 -12-22.

*Did you Know Justice Datta’sappointment now raises the judicial strength of the Supreme Court to 28 out of total strength of 34 judges4

Notable Judgments

We have curated the following notable decisions rendered by Justice Dipankar Datta during his tenure in the High Courts of Calcutta and Bombay:

  • In Nilesh Navalakha v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 56, the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta, CJ and G.S. Kulkarni, J.saidthat the duty of the media to have news items printed or telecast based on true and correct version relating to incidents worth reporting accurately and without any distortion or embellishment as well as without taking sides, cannot, therefore, be over emphasized and held that media-trialsduring criminal investigation to be an interference with the administration of justice, amounting to ‘contempt of court’ as per the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Read more
  • In Pradeep Gandhy v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 662, the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta, CJ and S.S. Shinde, J. whileaddressing petitions filed against the burial of dead bodies of COVID-19 infectedpatients in kabrasthans,quoted Oscar Wilde to describe death and directed the State as well as the Corporation to ensure that all protective measures envisaged in the Government guidelines are strictly complied with not only by the members of the family of the deceased at the time of burial but also by those second-line workers who would, as part of their duty, deal with the cadaver of any suspected/confirmed COVID-19 infected individual immediately after death. Read more
  • In Jan Swasthya Abhiyan v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 713, the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta, C.J., and A.A. Sayed, J.while hearing petitions about facilities being provided during COVID-19 invoked portions of the speech – “Tryst with Destiny”, given by the India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru on midnight August 14, 1947, to remind the authorities that service of India means the service of the millions who suffer, and observed that in view of the extraordinary situations emerging due to Covid-19, it is more imperative that the Government and the citizens, work together in order to put up a strong fight before the adversary that is Covid-19. Read more
  • Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. CST, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1767, the issue before the Court in the instant matter was that between a secured creditor (defined in SARFAESI Act and Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act), and the revenue departments of the Central/State Governments, who can legally claim priority for liquidation of their respective dues qua the borrower/dealer upon enforcement of the ‘security interest’ and consequent sale of the ‘secured asset’. The 3 Judge Bench of Dipankar Datta, CJ., and M.S. Karnik and N.J. Jamadar, JJ., while deliberating upon the question went on to frame and answer seven substantial questions of law on the issue. Read more
  • In Ruju R. Thakker v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 3707, the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta, CJ., and M S Karnik J.,directed Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to take urgent steps in fixing the potholes existing as on date as well as the State Government and MCGM to audit the performance of the erring road contractors responsible for the bad road conditions. Read more
  • In R.S. Madireddy v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 2657, the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta CJ., and M S Karnik J.,held that the writ petitions although maintainable on the dates they were instituted, have ceased to be maintainable by reason of privatization of AIL which takes it beyond the jurisdiction to issue a writ or order or direction to it. Read more
  • In Nikita v. Union of India, [Public Interest Litigation No. 107 of 2021], the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta, CJ. and M.S. Karnik, J., took cognizance of a PIL which was filed bringing on record the unclean and unhygienic situation in the washrooms and toilets for the young girl students in Government aided schools. Read more
  • In Ratan Soli Luth v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 1806 a case relating to the refusal of the Governer to nominate 12 members to the Legislative Council for over a year, Justice Datta while interpreting Arts. 171 and 166 of the Constitution, held that while the Court is not empowered to direct the Governer under Art. 361, however, it is the duty of the Governer to communicate his reservations within a reasonable time, otherwise the statutory intent would be defeated.
  • In Gera Developments (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 6839 while hearing petitions about the failure of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation to issue occupancy certificate and building completion certificate to multi-storied buildings, called the State government ‘Kumbhakarna’ for failing to take proper action at the right time.
  • In High Court on its own motion v. Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corpn., 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 386, Justice Datta disposed of a suo motu PIL pertaining to building collapses in Mumbai and directed the Municipal corporations to ensure that broken down structures are managed well in advance to avoid any deaths.
  • Justice Datta refused to entertain a PIL seeking guidelines for protection of members of Internal Complaints Committee set up by private companies under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act and asked the petitioner to approach Supreme Court, as the High Court did not have powers.5
  • In Rajendra Sadanand Burma v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 2026, while hearing a PIL seeking directions to authorities to take measures to curb death of tribal children due to malnutrition and other lack of facilities, Justice Datta noted that while the State authorities were concerned, some more efforts were required.
  • He also ordered a preliminary inquiry against the former Home Minister Anil Deshmukh in a corruption case6.
  • In Ganes Chandra Kundu v. State of W.B., 2014 SCC OnLine Cal 5110, Justice Datta directed the State Government to give opportunity to all the petitioners and other employees similarly situated to submit option to switch over to Pension-cum-Gratuity.
  • In J. Triveni v. State of West Bengal, 2010 SCC OnLine Cal 1692, Justice Datta allowed thepetitioners to offer their candidature for direct recruitment from the bar to the cadre of Higher Judicial Officer in the rank of District Judge in the West Bengal Judicial Service, and said that the petitioners having dispatched the registered envelopes through the postal authorities in the manner required at least 48 hours before the stipulated time for receiving applications, they should not be made to suffer for any delay or laches on the part of the postal authorities.
  • In Sankar Datta v. State of W.B., 2013 SCC OnLine Cal 12183, Justice Datta held that availability of alternative remedy does not oust the jurisdiction of writ Court.

*Did You Know? Justice Datta played a significant role in ensuring home vaccination for the bedridden patients in Maharashtra, directing the State Government to introduce a mechanism for vaccination.7

†Apoorva Goel, Editorial Assistant, EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

1. The Hon’ble Justice Dipankar Datta, Calcutta High Court

2. The Hon’ble Justice Dipankar Datta, Calcutta High Court

3. Justice Dipankar Datta, Bombay High Court

4. Ex-Bombay HC Chief Justice Dipankar Datta takes oath as Supreme Court judge, The Hindu

5. PIL in Bombay HC seeks protection for POSH panel members, The Times of India.

6. Bombay HC Chief Justice Dipankar Datta elevated to Supreme Court, Hindustan Times.

7. Maharashtra to start home vaccination for bedridden people on trial basis; won’t wait for Centre’s nod: Govt to HC, The Economic Times

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.