Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra was sworn-in as the Jharkhand High Court's 14th Chief Justice on 20-02-2023. The Governor of Jharkhand, C.P. Radhakrishnan administered the oath of office and secrecy to Justice Mishra at Governor House in Ranchi. At his swearing-in ceremony, Justice Mishra said that “My priority will be simple justice, transparent justice (…) Old cases will be given priority”
While welcoming Justice Mishra, Chief Minister of Jharkhand, Hemant Soren said that “In a backward state like Jharkhand where there are many legal issues, I am confident that Justice Mishra will solve these issues in a better manner”.
Justice Sanjaya K. Mishra was born on 29-12-1961, at Bolangir, Odisha to Markanda Mishra and Jyotirmayee Mishra. He started his schooling at Tikra Upper Primary School and passed 12th from Prithviraj High School, Bolangir in 1977. His qualifications comprise of — B.Com.(Hons.) from Rajendra College, Bolangir, M.Com. from Delhi University and LL.B. from Law Faculty, Delhi University.
As an advocate Justice Mishra started his practice under the guidance of his father, Markanda Mishra at Bolangir District Courts and later conducted cases independently. He also served as Honorary Law Lecturer of Bolangir Law College.
Justice Mishra joined Judiciary by passing Recruitment Examination for District Judges from Bar and, on 16-02-1999, joined as Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jeypore.
Did you Know? Justice Mishra secured 1st position in the Recruitment Examination for District Judges from Bar.
Justice Mishra worked as District & Sessions Judge, Sundergarh and as District & Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal. He also worked as a Special Judge, C.B.I, Bhubaneswar for the cases investigated by CBI. He also joined as Registrar General of Orissa High Court.
On 07-10-2009, Justice Mishra was elevated as Judge of the Orissa High Court and served in this capacity for nearly 12 years before being transferred to Uttaranchal High Court by Supreme Court Collegium.
Justice Mishra was the second senior most judge at Uttaranchal High Court and upon the retirement of Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, the then Chief Justice of Uttaranchal High Court, he was appointed as Acting Chief Justice of Uttaranchal High Court with effect from 24-12-2021 till 28-06-2022.
Justice Mishra was appointed as the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court by the President of India, thus becoming the 14th Chief Justice of the High Court.
Notable Decisions by Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra
Uttaranchal High Court | ‘Social stigma for the victim and unborn child would be insurmountable'; Court allows a 13-year-old victim to terminate pregnancy of over 25 weeks
A Single Judge Bench of Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J. allowed a 13-year-old rape victim to undergo termination of over 25 weeks of pregnancy and held that if any risk or danger to the life of the victim girl was found during the medical procedure, then the Medical Board had a discretion to cancel the procedure for medical termination of pregnancy.
X v. State of Uttarakhand, 2022 SCC OnLine Utt 1584
Uttaranchal High Court | Participation in the elections of college union is an integral part of the education; Court grants age relaxation of two years to the student for participating in the college election
A Single Judge Bench of Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J. allowed the writ petition filed by a college student and held that participation in college elections was an integral part of the education and since the right to college election was denied to the student, two years age relaxation should be granted to the student for participating in the elections of college.
Rajan v. State of Uttarakhand, 2022 SCC OnLine Utt 1621
Uttaranchal High Court | Commercial Court cannot modify arbitral award in absence of manifest and patent error/illegality
The Division Bench of Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, JJ. allowed appeals filed by the Contractor under S. 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter “the Act”) and held that judgments passed by the Additional. District Judge, Commercial Court, Dehradun are liable to be set aside as it committed an error by partly upholding the award of the Arbitral Tribunal disallowing the three claims of the Contractor.
Ravindra Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Utt 1279
Uttaranchal High Court | Whether writ petition on cancellation of GST Registration affecting the Right to Livelihood maintainable?
The Division bench of Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, A.C.J., Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, J., held in the writ petition is maintainable, as the cancellation of GST registration affects the rights of livelihood enshrined under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Court observed that in absence of a GST registration number, a professional cannot raise a bill which affects the chances of getting employment or executing works. Such denial of registration, therefore, affects the right of livelihood that is violative of Art. 21 of the Constitution. If the situation so prevailing continues, then it will not only amount to a violation of Article 21 but also the right to life of a citizen of this country.
Vinod Kumar v. Commr., 2022 SCC OnLine Utt 777
Uttaranchal High Court | State directed to take steps to frame and notify Rules for Registration of Sikh Marriages
The Division Bench of Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, ACJ. and Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, J. took up a PIL filed by the petitioner commanding the respondent State to notify the Rules under Anand Marriage Act, 1909 and to issue guidelines to register the marriage of people of Sikh Community under the Anand Marriage Act, 1909.
Amanjot Singh Chadha v. State of Uttarakhand, 2022 SCC OnLine Utt 228
Uttaranchal High Court | Public Service Commission directed to declare result of candidate who submitted late fees
The Division Bench of Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, ACJ. and Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, J. allowed a petition which was filed by an aspirant seeking a direction to respondents to allow the petitioner to appear for the mains examination of the Assistant Conservator of Forest.
Writ petition was allowed with the direction that the respondent-Commission shall declare the result of the recruitment process, as early as possible, treating the petitioner to be a qualified candidate to sit in the main examination, and proceed further with the same, and complete the same within a reasonable time.
Vibhu v. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, 2022 SCC OnLine Utt 1231
Uttaranchal High Court | State directed to release the arrears of the deceased-in harness in the favour of the family along with interest
The Division Bench of Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ. and Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J., allowed a petition which was filed by the widowed wife of Babu Ram, who had died-in harness on 26-08-2020 for the release of gratuity, leave encashment, arrears of ACPs', and the arrears of the 7th Pay Commission of her late husband in her favour.
Alka Rani v. State of Uttarakhand, 2021 SCC OnLine Utt 1269
Orissa High Court | Several months/year’s delay due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process; No reason to condone delay
In a case related to condonation of delay, Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J., relying on Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563, dismissed the appeal filed with delay of 2492 days (about 7 years).
Zone Officer v. Surendra Kandia, 2022 SCC OnLine Ori 2726
Orissa High Court | Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 is not arbitrary, unreasonable or onerous
While dismissing the writ petition filed to declare the proviso S. 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 to be ultra vires of the Constitution of India, the Division bench of S.K. Mishra and Savitri Ratho, JJ., held that “Sub-Section (5) of Section 43 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 is not arbitrary, unreasonable or onerous requiring the same to be declared ultra vires.”
Hi Tech Edifice (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Ori 1633
Orissa High Court | What is the reasonable time of approaching the Court, when no period of limitation has been prescribed?
While resolving the matter related to conflict of opinion regarding delay in filing the application under S. 37(1) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972, the Division bench of S.K. Mishra and Savitri Ratho, JJ., held that a reasonable time in approaching the Court is a question of fact and will depend on peculiar facts of each and every case. The Bench opined that no strait jacket formula can be provided in case no period of limitation has been prescribed.
Siba Muduli v. Director, 2021 SCC OnLine Ori 1632
Orissa High Court | Death Sentence in cases based on circumstantial evidence, can only be awarded when prosecution establishes the guilt of the offender with sterling evidence
While following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Swami Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 13 SCC 767, the Division bench of S.K. Mishra and Savitri Ratho, JJ., held that commission of very gruesome offence of rape of a minor girl that led to her death is not a fit case to award death sentence, only because of the laches of the Investigating Agency in not getting the DNA profiling carried out. The Court convicted the condemned prisoner to undergo imprisonment for life with a stipulation that for next 20 years the condemned prisoner shall not be given any parole.
“In the cases based on circumstantial evidence, death sentence should be awarded only in case the prosecution has established its case by the evidence of such sterling quality that the Court is absolutely clear about his guilt.”
State of Odisha v. Sunil Nayak, 2021 SCC OnLine Ori 1629
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra, High Court of Orissa.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra, High Court of Orissa.
Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra takes oath as judge of U’khand HC, The Times of India.