Know Thy Judge| Supreme Court of India: Justice Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari

Early life

Justice Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari was born on 29-06-1961 in a small town Joura, District Morena, Madhya Pradesh. He graduated in Arts in 1982 and passed LL.B. in 1985 and completed LL.M in 1991. He enrolled as an Advocate with the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh on 22-11-1985 and practiced in Civil, Criminal, Constitutional, Service and Tax matters. He was an elected member of the M.P. State Bar Council¹.

From Advocacy to Judgeship of Supreme Court

Justice Maheshwari appeared in the Supreme Court, Jabalpur High Court, Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur and M.P. State Administrative Tribunals also. Later he was appointed as Additional Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on 25-11-2005 and appointed as Permanent Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 25-11-2008. He has been part of various Committees, pertaining to betterment of administration of High Court of Madhya Pradesh and continued in his office till 06-10-2019.

He was elevated as Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court and assumed office on 07-10-2019. He was the First Chief Justice of the newly established Andhra Pradesh High Court².

Later, he was transferred as the Chief Justice of the High Court of Sikkim on 06-01-2021. On 31-08-2021, he was elevated as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India. He is due to retire on June 29, 2026.³

Did You know? Justice J.K. Maheshwari became the first Chief Justice in the history of Sikkim High Court to be elevated as Supreme Court Judge.⁴

He is known for his humble nature and diligent attitude. In his farewell speech from the Andhra Pradesh High Court, he got very emotional and gave all the credits to his counterparts, colleagues and staff. He, in his speech, with utmost humility stated that “I have done nothing, in fact the credit has come to me by those who deserve credit”.⁵

Notable Judgments of Justice J.K. Maheshwari

SUPREME COURT

Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 544

A Constitution Bench comprising of Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna*, A.S. Oka, Vikram Nath, and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. has held that the Supreme Court has the discretion to dissolve the marriage by passing a decree of divorce by mutual consent, without being bound by the procedural requirement to move the second motion subject to the requirements and conditions laid down under Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, (2017) 8 SCC 746 and Amit Kumar v. Suman Beniwal, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1270. It was also held that in exercise of power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, Supreme Court has the discretion to dissolve the marriage on the ground of its irretrievable breakdown. Read More

Union of India v. Union Carbide Corpn., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 264

The Constitution Bench comprising of Sanjay Kishan Kaul*, Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S. Oka, Vikram Nath and J.K. Maheshwari, J.J., which had reserved its judgement on 12-01-2023, delivered its judgment dated 14-03-2023 dismissing the curative petition seeking enhancement of compensation for the victims of the world’s largest industrial disaster- the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. The Court ordered that a sum of Rs 50 crore lying with the Reserve Bank of India be utilized by the Center to satisfy the pending claims, if any, in accordance with the Bhopal Gas leak Disaster Act, 1985 and schemes framed thereunder. Read More

Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 130

The 5-Judge Constitution Bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul*, Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S. Oka, Vikram Nath and J.K Maheshwari, JJ., upheld the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) power to conduct pre-enrolment examination i.e. All India Bar Examination (AIBE). The Court observed that neither the provisions under the Advocates Act, 1961, nor the role of the universities to impart legal education, in any way, prohibit the Bar Council of India from conducting pre-enrolment examination, as the Council is directly concerned with the standard of persons who want to obtain a license to practice law as a profession. Read more.

Commr. of Gift Tax v. BPL Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1405

The Division Bench of Sanjiv Khanna* and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ., while answering the appeals relating to the valuation of shares of BPL Sanyo Technologies Ltd. and BPL Sanyo Utilities and Appliances Ltd. gifted by the assessee to Celestial Finance Ltd. in 1993, held that equity shares which are quoted and transferable in the stock exchange are to be valued based on the current transactions and quotations in the open market.Read more.

Kamukayi v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 642

While hearing an appeal against the Judgement of Madras High Court wherein the decision of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench dismissing the claim petition for death compensation was upheld, the Division Bench of Surya Kant and J.K. Maheshwari*, JJ., allowed the appeal and held that deceased was a bonafide passenger and that as per the provisions contained in Section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989 and Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, the appellants were entitled to claim compensation. Read More

Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 129

The 5-judge Constitution Bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S. Oka*, Vikram Nath and JK Maheshwari, JJ., referred the issue relating to ex-communication of a person from the Dawoodi Bohra community to a larger Bench and observed that the same deserves to be tagged with the review petition of the Sabarimala Temple verdict that is pending for consideration before a 9-judge Bench, after noticing similarity of issues in both the matters. Read more.

Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd., (2022) 8 SCC 352

The bench of Indira Banerjee* and JK Maheshwari, JJ., rejected the view of NCLT and NCLAT that once it is found that a debt existed, and a Corporate Debtor is in default in payment of the debt there would be no option to the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) but to admit the petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). Read More

Neilan International Co. Ltd. v. Powerica Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 795

In a case where the single bench of JK Maheshwari, J., was posed with the question as to whether the plea of territorial jurisdiction or the lack thereof can be entertained by the Supreme Court in its jurisdiction under Section 25 of CPC, it was observed that there is limited scope vested in this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 25 of CPC and the same cannot be extended to determine the question of territorial jurisdiction of the proceedings before it as the plea of jurisdiction or the lack of it can be prompted before the Court in which the proceedings are pending. Read More

Abhimanyu Partap Singh v. Namita Sekhon, (2022) 8 SCC 489

In an appeal filed against the Judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court to enhance the claim of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Division Bench of Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari JJ., allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation under heads “future loss of earning” and “attendant charges” by applying multiplier method in case of 100% permanent disability.

Union of India v. Methu Meda, (2022) 1 SCC 1

The Division Bench of Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari JJ., held that if a person is acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt, from the charge of an offence involving moral turpitude or because the witnesses turned hostile, it would not automatically entitle him for the employment, that too in disciplined force. The employer has a right to consider his candidature in terms of the circulars issued by the Screening Committee. The mere disclosure of the offences alleged, and the result of the trial is not sufficient. In the said situation, the employer cannot be compelled to give an appointment to the candidate. Both the Single Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court did not consider the said legal position.

Vasudev v. State of M.P., (2022) 4 SCC 735

The High Court, while convicting the appellant by the impugned judgment [Rajesh v. State of M.P., 2020 SCC OnLine MP 4590], had merely observed that because the accused were prized goons and were absconding and as per the deposition, it could not be said that Appellant 2 was not involved because he was arrested on the spot and taken to police station. The Division Bench of Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari JJ., observed that the prosecution was required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction cannot be based merely on the basis of presumption to rule out the presence of accused.

Arcelormittal Nippon Steel (India) Ltd. v. Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd., (2022) 1 SCC 712

The Division Bench comprising of Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. held that once an Arbitral Tribunal is constituted, the court would not take up for consideration and apply its mind to an application for an interim measure, unless the remedy of applying to the arbitral tribunal for interim relief is inefficacious. However, this bar does not operate where already the application has been taken up for consideration and the court has applied its mind. Read more

J. Vedhasingh v. R.M. Govindan, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1010

The bench of SA Nazeer and JK Maheshwari*, JJ., has called upon a larger bench to decide if on similar set of allegations of fact the accused can be tried for an offence under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 which is special enactment and also for offences under IPC unaffected by the prior conviction or acquittal or whether the bar of Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. would attract for such trial. Read More

Pahwa Plastics (P) Ltd. v. Dastak NGO, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 362

The Division Bench comprising of Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ., held that although to protect future generations and to ensure sustainable development, it is imperative that pollution laws be strictly enforced, were the adverse consequences of denial of ex post facto approval of Environment Clearance outweigh the consequences of regularization of operations by grant of ex post facto approval, and the establishment concerned otherwise conforms to the requisite pollution norms, ex post facto approval should be given in accordance with law, in strict conformity with the applicable Rules, Regulations and/or Notifications. Read more

Gangadhar Narayan Nayak v. State of Karnataka, (2022) 12 SCC 72

The bench of Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari, JJ., gave a split verdict on the issue as to whether the Special Court is debarred from taking cognizance of an offence under Section 23 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and obliged to discharge the accused under Section 227 CrPC, only because of want of permission of the jurisdictional Magistrate to the police, to investigate into the offence. Justice JK Maheshwari opined that-

The word used in Section 155(2) be read as “Special Courts” in place of “Magistrate”, which may take cognizance of any offence under POCSO Act. Read More

GPR Power Solutions (P) Ltd. v. Supriyo Chaudhuri, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1328

In a case relating to Corporate Insolvency, the Division Bench comprising of Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ., quashed the order of NCLAT rejecting the application under S. 60(5) of IBC. The Bench held that the NCLAT and NCLT had failed to consider the law laid down by the Court with regard to extension of limitation period due to Covid-19 pandemic. Read more

SIKKIM HIGH COURT

Silajit Guha v. Sikkim University, 2021 SCC OnLine Sikk 80

The Division Bench of J.K. Maheshwari, CJ., and Meenakshi Madan Rai J., observed that in the facts of the case the ambit and scope of the workplace as specified in Section 2(o) of the Act can be decided after appreciation of the evidence brought before ICC, as considered by Single Bench. The Court opined that observation of Single Judge referring to Section 2(o) of the Act i.e., ‘workplace’ its ambit and scope is not proper in particular when the same question is permitted to be decided by the Executive Authority. Therefore, the Court held that the finding on the point of jurisdiction explaining the definition of ‘workplace’ was an inclusive one, stands set aside to such extent and the liberty is granted to the appellant to raise the said question before the Executive Authority who shall decide the same in accordance with the law. Read more

Munni Devi v. Dul Dul Prasad, 2021 SCC OnLine Sikk 82

Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari, CJ. allowed a writ petition which was filed assailing the updated Award passed by the Lok Adalat. The Court held that in place of accepting the plea that the compromise by virtue of collusion and fraud and the Award so passed in the same fashion; but in view of the observation so made it is suffice to observe the Award so passed by the Lok Adalat in view of the pleadings of the suit without joining all the parties and without affording an opportunity is not proper. Writ Petition was allowed, the Award passed by the Lok Adalat was set aside. Read more

Chandu Sherpa v. Sunita Rai, 2021 SCC OnLine Sikk 91

Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari, CJ, allowed the writ petitions which were arising out of the Order passed on 12-11-2019 in different suits allowing the application filed by the defendant under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court allowing all the petitions held that merely by denial of the plaintiffs to the document having transaction with other persons by late Lakey Sherpa cannot be relevant to the merit of the present case setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court. Read more

Discharge of Effluents by Pharma Companies, In re, 2021 SCC OnLine Sikk 101

The Division Bench of Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari, CJ, and Meenakshi Madan Rai, J., heard a Public Interest Litigation relating to the issue of extraction of the groundwater through sufficient surface water was available in the State. The Court went on to find that the Central Ground Water Board and its Authorities had not specified a reason for granting no objection for extracting the ground water and without such reason conditional permissions were granted. The Court stated that this type of functioning of the authority could not be appreciated. Read more

State of Sikkim v. Dipen Subba, 2021 SCC OnLine Sikk 139

The Division Bench of Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari, CJ. and Meenakshi Madan Rai, J., dismissed a criminal leave petition noting that the prosecutrix, being deaf and dumb, who was not able to answer answer any of the questions as put forth to her and her evidence cannot be taken as evidence of an eyewitness. Read more

Tara Prasad Sharma v. State of Sikkim, 2021 SCC OnLine Sikk 56

J.K. Maheshwari, CJ, dismissed a petition considering it to be bereft of merit which had sought to continue on the post of Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate as he had been acquitted of the charge levelled against him under Section 468 of the IPC. The Court while considering the fact, that the resolution in question has not been challenged either on the basis of mala fide or on extraneous considerations or irrationality of the findings, therefore in the absence of the same considered interfering in it, unwarranted. Read more

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Did you know? During his tenure as the first Chief Justice of the newly formed Andhra Pradesh High Court, Justice Maheshwari took steps for the Establishment of Gram Nyayalayas at various stations in the State of Andhra Pradesh. He also disposed of more than 4500 cases during the short span of 15 months as the Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court.⁶

Taken UP v. State of A.P., 2020 SCC OnLine AP 137

A Division Bench of Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari, CJ and Lalitha Kanneganti, J., addressed certain PILs that were filed in regard to the LG Polymers poisonous gas leakage incident.

Petition was filed seeking direction or any appropriate writ calling for records relating to leakage of poisonous gas from LG Polymers factory at Visakhapatnam and further directing respondents to save lives of people in around the factory by providing necessary medical facilities.

Court passed the following interim directions:

• Premises to be completely seized and no one to be allowed, including the Directors of the Company.

• Committee, if any, appointed wants to inspect premises, they are at liberty but shall put a not on Register maintained at the gate of the Company regarding the said inspection and a note while returning regarding what act done in premises.

• None of the assets movable or immovable, fixture, machinery and contents shall be allowed to be shifted without the leave of the Court.

• As stated before, Directors have surrendered their passport and they are in India, however, Court directs that their passports shall not be released without the leave of the Court, and they be not allowed to go outside India without leave.

• It be also apprised whether, during the lockdown period, any permissions were obtained to restart the operations, if not, action taken report be filed.

• Grievance regarding appointment of various committees by NGT, Centre and State, Centre and State are at liberty to apprise as to which Committee shall fulfil the purpose. Read more

In re, Corona Virus-COVID-19 Pandemic, 2020 SCC OnLine AP 37

A Division Bench of Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari, CJ and M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J. addressed a Public Interest Litigation with regard to non-cooperation of staff at ASRAM Medical College, Eluru due to non-availability of WHO-approved Personal Protection Equipment.

Court asked the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Eluru and Advocate YMSRN Surya Teja to visit the said hospital and supply the following information:

• How many patients admitted in the hospital by this time.

• Details of the ward where such patients have been admitted and whether isolation facility is available

• Who are the Doctors and Para-medical staff on duty to provide medical and other necessary item

• Whether the patients have been duly treated specifying the prescription and other precaution

• Whether the Government and the Dean in-charge is providing due care to those Doctors and Para-medical staff as specified in the WHO guidelines by changing their duties and providing them isolation

• Whether the Corona-positive patients are maintaining distance

• While submitting the aforesaid information, it be also clarified as to who are the Doctors and the Para-medical staff who were on duty at the time of admission of Corona-positive patients and suspect patients and also the who are the Doctors and Para-medical staff now on duty and treating them. Read more

Did You Know? There existed no Bungalow for the Chief Justice of newly established High Court of Andhra Pradesh, so Justice J.K Maheshwari identified a site and got constructed a new Chief Justice’s Bungalow at Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh.⁷

In re, Nandigam Suresh, 2020 SCC OnLine AP 141

The Division Bench of Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari and C. Praveen Kumar, JJ., had issued contempt notices to as many as 49 persons which include several law makers. The Court was taking suo motu cognizance of the alleged contemptuous speeches/interviews/postings by these 49 persons against some Judges of the Supreme Court, Judges of the High Court and the High Court itself.

Bench noted that the comments made in the media posts and video clippings are wholly unwarranted and to scandalize or tend to scandalize the institution.

Considering the above Court issued Rule Nisi to the respondents/contemnors, who can be identified from the posts. Read more

M. Janakirama Raju v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2020 SCC OnLine AP 41

J.K. Maheshwari, CJ while providing an ad interim relief directed the State Authorities to permit vehicles transporting fishes and shrimps and include the same under the category of “essential supplies”. Read more

In re. Corona Virus – COVID-19 Pandemic, 2020 SCC OnLine AP 64

Division Bench of J.K. Maheshwari, CJ and M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J. issued interim measures considering certain aspects in view of the nationwide lockdown due to the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic. Read more

A.V. Badra Naga Seshayya v. State of A.P., 2020 SCC OnLine AP 509

A Division Bench of J.K. Maheshwari, CJ and B. Krishna Mohan, J., addressed a Public Interest Litigation wherein a direction was sought to declare the proclamation, attempt or conduct of Andhra Pradesh State Election Commission in not conducting any election/poll for any post where there is only a single candidate in the fray for such post in any constituency, during the ensuing elections to be held for the members of local governing bodies in lieu of notifications and thereby depriving the electors’ of their right to vote in the form of NOTA against such single candidate. Read more

Koilagandla Nirajnaj v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine AP 65

A Division Bench of J.K. Maheshwari, CJ and M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J. asked the State Government to ensure provision of all required equipments to Doctors, Nurses, Ward Boys and Paramedical staff to combat COVID-19. Read more

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Did You Know? During his tenure as Judge in Madhya Pradesh High Court, Justice Maheswari disposed of more than 65,000 cases while sitting in Indore Bench, Gwalior Bench and Principal Seat at Jabalpur and Lok Adalats held by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh from time to time⁸.

Supa v. Deepa, 2018 SCC OnLine MP 804

The Single Judge Bench of J.K. Maheshwari J. held that Appointment of a person accused in a criminal case was rightly rejected by appointing authority. Read more

Afjal Khan v. State of M.P., 2019 SCC OnLine MP 1672

A Division Bench of J.K. Maheshwari and Anjuli Palo, JJ. partly allowed a criminal petition filed by a person accused of rape and murder of his minor daughter and commuted his death penalty to life imprisonment. The Court drew a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances to determine if the death penalty was adequate punishment. Aggravating circumstances: (i) extremely brutal, diabolic and cruel act; (ii) victim being six years was a minor and helpless; (iii) no provocation because the accused was in a dominating position; (iv) injuries were grievous with respect to sexual assault particularly in a case where the victim was the daughter of the appellant. Mitigating circumstances: (i) it was a case of circumstantial evidence; (ii) no evidence that the accused had the propensity of committing further crimes causing continuous threat to the society; (iii) no evidence to show that the accused could not be reformed or rehabilitated; (iv) other punishment options were open; (v) accused was not a professional killer or offender having any criminal antecedent; (vi) accused being a major having family with him, the possibility of reformation could not be ruled out. Read more