“What is non-existent in the eye of the law cannot be revived retrospectively. Life cannot be breathed into the stillborn charge memorandum”
Justice Aniruddha Bose
Sunny Abraham v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1284
Justice Aniruddha Bose of the Supreme Court of India celebrates his 64th birthday today. In order to celebrate this special occasion, it is only appropriate that we take look at the journey of Justice Bose’s career in law and the various important Supreme Court and High Court decisions rendered by him.
Early Life and Career1
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose was born on 11-04-1959 in Kolkata (then Calcutta). In 1976, he passed his Higher Secondary Examination from St. Lawrence High School, Kolkata. He did his B. Com from St. Xavier’s College, Kolkata and Law from Surendranath College of Law in Kolkata as well.
Having obtained his degree in Law, Justice Bose enrolled with the Bar Council of West Bengal as an advocate in October 1985. He practiced in the Original and the Appellate Side of the Calcutta High Court in Constitutional and Civil matters, with special emphasis on Intellectual Property Law cases.
In the High Courts2
After a tenure of roughly 19 years as an advocate in the Calcutta High Court, Justice Aniruddha Bose was elevated to the High Court Bench as a Permanent Judge in 2004. He continued to serve the Calcutta High Court till early 2018.
He was also in the running for the post of Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, however, on 04-08-2018, upon recommendation by the Supreme Court Collegium, Justice Bose was appointed as the Chief Justice of Jharkhand High Court by the President of India, Ramnath Kovind on 11-08-2018.
Journey to becoming Supreme Court Judge
In a Resolution, the Supreme Court Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, C.J., and S.A. Bobde, N.V. Ramana, Arun Mishra and R.F. Nariman, JJ., reiterated their recommendation (dt. 12-04-2019) to elevate Justice Aniruddha Bose as a Judge of the Supreme Court. Consequently, Justice Bose was appointed as a Supreme Court Judge on 24-05-2019 by President of India, Ramnath Kovind.
Notable Judgments that Justice Aniruddha Bose has been a part of
The Supreme Court of India [2019 till present]
*Did You Know? Justice Aniruddha Bose has been part of over 400+ Supreme Court judgments.3
Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 216
The 5-judge Constitution Bench of K.M. Joseph*, Ajay Rastogi**, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ has settled the dispute revolving around appointment of members of the Election Commission of India (ECI) and held that the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners shall appointed by the President on the advice of a 3-member committee consisting of:
the Prime Minister of India;
the leader of opposition in Lok Sabha or in case, there is no such Leader, the Leader of the largest Party in the Opposition in the Lok Sabha having the largest numerical strength;
and the Chief Justice of India
The Court made clear that this norm will continue to hold good till a law is made by Parliament. Read More
Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 99
In a miscellaneous application filed by Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine seeking clarification of the judgment reported in Common Cause v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1, a 5-Judge Constitution Bench of K.M Joseph*, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy, CT Ravikumar, JJ. viewed that the directions contained in paragraphs 198 to 199 (2018 Judgment) require to be modified/deleted. Thus, it made the necessary amendments. Read More
Karmanya Singh Sareen v. Union of India4
Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Ex-Employees’ Association v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 100
In a case where the ex-employees of Maharashtra State Financial Corporation (MSFC) had challenged decision denying the benefit of revision of pay scales, as recommended by the Fifth Pay Commission, to the employees who had retired or died during the period of 01-01-2006 to 29-03-2010, the bench of Aniruddha Bose and S. Ravindra Bhat*, JJ., held that while the exclusion of the employees who retired on achieving their date of superannuation, is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution, the benefit cannot be extended to the VRS employees or the employees who were terminated or dismissed as they cannot claim parity with others who retired upon achieving the age of superannuation. Read More
Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 340
In an application filed under Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 requesting the Court to hold that the applicant/convict for committing offences under Sections 302, 342, 397, 449 read with 120-B and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, the full bench of KM Joseph, Aniruddha Bose* and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ., declared that the date of birth of the convict as reflected in the certificate issued by his school is to be accepted for determining his age at the time of commission of the offence of which he has been convicted. Going by that certificate, his age at the time of commission of offence was 12 years and 6 months. Thus, he was a juvenile on the date of commission of offence for which he had been convicted, in terms of the provisions of the JJ Act. Further, said that this shall be deemed to be the true age of ‘Niranaram’, who was tried and convicted as ‘Narayan’. Read More
Joseph Shine v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 149
The Constitution Bench comprising of K.M. Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and C.T. Ravikumar J.J., reserved its judgment dated 31-01-2023 on the issue pertaining to an application filed by the Department of Military Affairs seeking clarification of the Constitution Bench judgment in Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39. Read More
Nahar Singh v. State of U.P., (2022) 5 SCC 295
The division bench of Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose JJ., deliberated on the issue that whether a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on the basis of a police report in terms of Section 190(1)(b) of The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, can issue summons to any person not arraigned as an accused in the police report and whose name also does not feature in column (2) of such report. They held that for summoning persons upon taking cognizance of an offence, the Magistrate must examine the materials available before him for concluding that apart from those sent up by the police some other persons are involved in the offence. These materials need not remain confined to the police report, charge sheet or the F.I.R. A statement made under Section 164 of CrPC could also be considered for such purpose.
State of Haryana v. Harnam Singh, (2022) 2 SCC 238
While considering the issues surrounding the determination of genuineness of a will as per S. 63 of Succession Act, 1925 and the evidence of meeting the requirements of S. 63 r/w S. 68 of the Evidence Act; the Division Bench of L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose JJ., held that the aforementioned evidence must inspire confidence and be credible. Requirements of S. 63 of 1925 Act, cannot be fulfilled merely upon showing of mechanical or technical compliance with the stipulations specified therein.
Gurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab, (2021) 6 SCC 108
In a case relating to dowry death, where it was argued by the accused that without any charges under Section 498A, IPC a conviction under Section 304-B, IPC cannot be sustained, the 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, CJ., and Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., rejected the contention and has explained,
“Although cruelty is a common thread existing in both the offences, however the ingredients of each offence are distinct and must be proved separately by the prosecution. If a case is made out, there can be a conviction under both the sections.” Read more
Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2021) 6 SCC 1
In a case relating to dowry death, the bench of NV Ramana, CJ and Aniruddha Bose, J., held that judges need to be extra careful while conducting criminal trials relating to Section 304-B, IPC. The Court went on to summarise the law under Section 304-B, IPC read with Section 113-B, Evidence Act and the guidelines to be followed by the Courts while conducting trials in such cases.
The Court noticed that, often, Trial Courts record the statement of an accused under Section 313, CrPC in a very casual and cursory manner, without specifically questioning the accused as to his defense. Read more
Sunny Abraham v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1284
The Division Bench of L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., held that not having approval of the Finance Minister at the time of issue of charge memorandum for carrying departmental enquiry would render it defective, not capable of being validated retrospectively by post-facto approval.
“Life cannot be breathed into the stillborn charge memorandum”. Read more
Jitendra Singh v. State of M.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802
Observing the well-settled position of law that, Mutation Entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the person and it is only recorded for the fiscal purpose, Division Bench of M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., upheld the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned decision passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court by which the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the decision by Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division directing to mutate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records, which was sought to be mutated on the basis of the will, the original respondent 6 preferred the present special leave petition. Read more
Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited v. Ajay Sales & Suppliers, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 730
Expressing on the aspect of independence and impartiality of the arbitrators, Division Bench of M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., held that, though the word ‘Chairman’ is not mentioned explicitly in Seventh Schedule, at the same time, it would fall under clause 1, clause 2, clause 5, and clause 12 of the Seventh Schedule, hence will be ineligible for the purpose of the arbitration.
The above schedule is to be read with Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Read more
National Spot Exchange Limited v. Anil Kohli, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 716
The Bench of M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., observed that,
“Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction or power to condone the delay not exceeding 15 days from the completion of 30 days, the statutory period of limitation.”
Aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal by which NCLAT refused to condone delay of 44 days in preferring the appeal against the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal rejecting the claim of the appellant. Appellant has preferred the present appeal. Read more
Velladurai v. State, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 715
The Division Bench of M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., while addressing a matter noted that, abetment by a person is when a person instigates another to do something. Instigation can be inferred where the accused had, by his acts or omission created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. Read more
Northern Western Railway v. Sanjay Shukla, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1036
While addressing the matter wherein a passenger suffered loss and agony due to delay in the arrival of train, M.R Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., observed that,
“These are the days of competition and accountability. If public transportation has to survive and compete with private players, they have to improve the system and their working culture”. Read more
J. Chitra v. State Level Vigilance Committee, (2021) 9 SCC 811
A Division Bench of L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. reversed a judgment of the Madras High Court delivered over a decade ago and held that the State Level Scrutiny Committee had no power to reopen the matter relating to the caste certificate that had been approved by the District Vigilance Committee, without an appeal being filed against such order. The Supreme Court declared that:
“Reopening of inquiry into caste certificates can be only in case they are vitiated by fraud or when they were issued without proper inquiry.” Read more
Pichra Warg Kalyan Mahasabha Haryana v. State of Haryana, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 635
A Division Bench of L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., quashed the notification dated 17-8-2016 issued by State Government of Haryana, which specified economic criterion as the sole basis of identification of ‘creamy layer’ (socially advanced sections) among backward classes for excluding them from the purview of benefit of reservation in State services and admission to educational institutions. The Supreme Court reiterated that the basis of exclusion of ‘creamy layer’ cannot be merely economic. Read more
Mangala Waman Karandikar v. Prakash Damodar Ranade, (2021) 6 SCC 139
Explaining the scope of Section 92 Proviso (6) of the Evidence Act, 1872, the 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, CJ., and Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., has held that the said proviso can be resorted to only in cases where the terms of the document leave the question in doubt.
“But when a document is a straightforward one and presents no difficulty in construing it, the proviso does not apply. In this regard, we may state that Section 95 only builds on the proviso 6 of Section 92.”
The Court was of the opinion that if the contrary view is adopted as correct it would render Section 92 of the Evidence Act, otiose and also enlarge the ambit of proviso 6 beyond the main Section itself. Read more
Namrata Verma v. State of U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3337
In a landmark case, the Division Bench of M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., held that an employee has no right to insist/deny his transfer at a particular place. The Bench was addressing the case of a Lecturer (Psychology) at Rajkiya Mahavidyalaya, Gajraula, District Amroha; who had made representation for her transfer to Rajkiya Post Graduate College, Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar. The said representation had been rejected by the Additional Chief Secretary Higher Education, Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner contended before the Court that she had been working at Amroha for the last 4 years and therefore, under the Government policy she was entitled to a transfer. Read more
Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police, (2020) 10 SCC 439
The 3-judge bench of SK Kaul, Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari, JJ., in the Shaheen Bagh protests matter, held that while there exists the right to peaceful protest against a legislation, public ways and public spaces cannot be occupied in such a manner and that too indefinitely. The Court noticed that the Constitutional scheme comes with the right to protest and express dissent, but with an obligation towards certain duties. These rights, in cohesion, enable every citizen to assemble peacefully and protest against the actions or inactions of the State. The same must be respected and encouraged by the State, for the strength of a democracy such as India’s lies in the same. Read More
State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, (2020) 8 SCC 1
5-judge bench of Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ upon noticing that SC decision of E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P.,(2005) 1 SCC 394, is required to be revisited, referred the matter to a larger bench. While doing so, the Court observed, “Reservation was not contemplated for all the time by the framers of the Constitution. On the one hand, there is no exclusion of those who have come up, on the other hand, if sub- classification is denied, it would defeat right to equality by treating unequal as equal.” Read more
West U.P. Sugar Mills Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2020) 9 SCC 548
The 5-judge bench of Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee and Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., held that once the Central Government having exercised the power under Entries 33 and 34 List III of Seventh Schedule and fixed the “minimum price”, the State Government cannot fix the “minimum price” of sugarcane. Read more
Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 383
The 5-judge bench of Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., held the Government Office Ms. No.3 dated 10.1.2000 issued by the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh providing 100% reservation to the Scheduled Tribe candidates (out of whom 33.1/3% shall be women) for the post of teachers in the schools in the scheduled areas in Andhra Pradesh, unconstitutional, as there was no rhyme or reason with the State Government to resort to 100% reservation. Read more
T.N. Medical Officers Assn. v. Union of India, (2021) 6 SCC 568
The 5-judge Constitution bench of Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., held that the Medical Council of India has no power to make any reservation for in-service candidates in Post Graduate Medical Course in States and that only States are allowed to grant the benefit of reservation of seats to in-service doctors in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) postgraduate degree courses. Read more
Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule v. Vishwasrao Patil Murgud Sahakari Bank Ltd., (2020) 9 SCC 215
The 5-judge bench of Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ held that ‘banking’ relating to cooperatives can be included within the purview of Entry 45 of List I, and it cannot be said to be over inclusion to cover provisions of recovery by cooperative banks in the SARFAESI Act.” Read more
Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramanian, (2021) 5 SCC 283
The 3-Judge Bench comprising of N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., held that upheld the judgement of High Court of Judicature at Madras, whereby the order of acquittal of the Judicial Magistrate was reversed and the appellants had been convicted under Section 138 of the NIA, 1881. The Bench observed-
“Once the appellant 2 had admitted his signatures on the cheque and the Deed, the trial Court ought to have presumed that the cheque was issued as consideration for a legally enforceable debt.” Read more
Rohtas v. State of Haryana, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1014
Explaining the difference between Sections 34 and 149 of the IPC, the 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., held that
“Although both Section 34 and 149 of the IPC are modes for apportioning vicarious liability on the individual members of a group, there exist a few important differences between these two provisions. Whereas Section 34 requires active participation and a prior meeting of minds, Section 149 IPC assigns liability merely by membership of the unlawful assembly. In reality, such ‘common intention’ is usually indirectly inferred from conduct of the individuals and only seldom it is done through direct evidence.” Read More
Anita Sharma v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2021) 1 SCC 171
The bench of Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose, JJ held that the strict principles of evidence and standards of proof like in a criminal trial are inapplicable in Motor Accident Claims cases. Read More
Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713
The 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Anirudhha Bose, JJ., refused to interfere with the bail granted by Kerala High Court to KA Najeeb arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 but has imposed the conditions. He shall also refrain from participating in any activity which might enrage communal sentiments. Read More
Government of India v. Vedanta Limited, (2020) 10 SCC 1
The 3-judge bench of SA Nazeer, Indu Malhotra and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., dismissed Central Government’s plea against enforcement of a 2011 foreign award passed in favour of Vedanta Limited in a dispute arising out of a contract for exploring and developing the petroleum resources in the Ravva Gas and Oil Fields. The Court held, “the enforcement of the foreign award does not contravene the public policy of India, or that it is contrary to the basic notions of justice.” Read More
Yatin Narendra Oza v. High Court of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 724
The 3-judge bench of SK Kaul, Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari, JJ., observed that the Court would wait for the order of the Gujarat High Court before passing any orders in the issue relating to withdrawal of senior Designation of advocate Narendra Oza. Oza, who is also the President of the Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association, was stripped off his Senior Advocate designation. This was done after Advocate Oza had levelled charges of corruption against the registry of the Gujarat High Court. Read More
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 410
Taking note of the fact that several Tribunals and High Courts have been awarding compensation for loss of consortium and loss of love and affection, the bench directed the Tribunals and High Courts to award compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate conventional head.
“There is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head.”
The 3-judge bench of SA Nazeer, Indu Malhotra and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., were hearing an issue relating to determination of compensation in a motor vehicle accident case. Read More
Murali v. State, (2021) 1 SCC 726
The bench of N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., held that unequivocal language of S. 320(9) of CrPC, explicitly prohibits any compounding except as permitted under S. 320 of CrPC. Notwithstanding thereto, fact of amicable settlement/compromise between parties can be a relevant factor for purpose of reduction in quantum of sentence of convicts even in serious non-compoundable offences.
Calcutta High Court [2004 – 2018]
Madan Das v. Lt. Governor, 2011 SCC OnLine Cal 2374
The 7 Judge Bench of the High Court comprising of Jainarayan Patel, C.J. and Bhaskar Bhattacharya, Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, Indira Banerjee, Aniruddha Bose and Sambuddha Chakrabarti, JJ., held that unless special circumstances mentioned in Rule 5 of Order 47, CPC subsist, a Judge who delivered the original judgment or order sought to be reviewed, alone can take up the Application for review as well.
Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Mahaluxmi Textile Mills, 2009 SCC OnLine Cal 531
The Bench of S.S. Nijjar, C.J. and Indira Banerjee and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., in this trademark infringement suit, made significant observations as to the necessity and importance of the trademark. It was noted that the key function of a trademark is to indicate the source or origin of goods and services. The tort of passing off is committed if the offending trader applies an established trade mark in such manner so as to cause confusion or deception in the mind of the consumers as regards the source or origin of the goods and the mind of purchasers are directed to the firm whose identity is already linked with the trademark in the market -place.
Union of India v. Pam Development Pvt. Ltd., 2005 SCC OnLine Cal 299
The Division bench of Aloke Chakrabarti and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., held, the Chief Justice, under S. 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is not strictly bound to appoint an arbitrator who must have a qualification as agreed upon between the parties, thus, even if the arbitrator does not have the qualification, his appointment would not be rendered invalid.
Jharkhand High Court [2018- 2019]
Hit Narayan Jha v. The State of Jharkhand, 2018 SCC OnLine Jhar 1371
The bench of Aniruddha Bose, C.J. and Chandrashekhar, J., set aside the dismissal from service on the charge of taking illegal gratification. It was observed that the writ Court would not interfere with the orders passed by the departmental authority unless it has been passed in breach of the Discipline and Service Rules or in avoidance of the rules of natural justice.
State of Jharkhand v. HSS Integrated SDN, 2019 SCC OnLine Jhar 172
This was a contractual dispute between the State and the opposite parties in relation to a consultancy agreement over construction of six-lane Divided Carriageway of certain parts of Ranchi Ring Road. An Arbitral Tribunal was constituted which found that termination of the contract was illegal and invalid. The bench of Aniruddha Bose, C.J. and Ratnaker Bhengra, J., while hearing the challenge to the Tribunal’s Award, held that there was no involvement of any grave violation of public policy by the Arbitral Tribunal in passing the award. The facts narrated in the award do not project any gross misuse of jurisdiction which could shock the conscience of the Court.
4. SLP(C) 804 of 2017