Justice Krishna Murari: Harbinger of litigants’ rights, bids adieu to the Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court of any country holds a position of immense importance, serving as the final arbiter of justice and safeguarding the constitutional rights of its citizens. Within the Indian legal system, Justice Krishna Murari stands as a distinguished jurist who has contributed significantly to the realm of justice and upholding the rule of law. With an illustrious career spanning several decades, Justice Krishna Murari has left an indelible mark on Indian judiciary by displaying exceptional knowledge, integrity, and unwavering commitment to justice.

“Persons from marginalised sections of society already face severe discrimination due to a lack of social capital, and a new disability more often than not compounds to such discrimination. In such circumstances, to preserve the essence of justice, it becomes the duty of the Court to at the very least restore the claimant as best as possible to the position he was in before the occurrence of the disability, and to do so must award compensation in a liberal manner.”¹

– Justice Krishna Murari

Early Life and Education

Justice Murari was born on 09-07-1958 in a family of lawyers, in Uttar Pradesh. His uncle G.N Verma was a senior advocate and a leading lawyer.² He completed his law degree from the University of Allahabad and enrolled as an Advocate on 23-12-1981 to embark on a remarkable journey in the field of law.³

Career as an Advocate

Known for his sharp intellect, legal acumen, and impeccable integrity, Justice Murari began his impressive 22- year career as an advocate at the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil, Constitutional, Company, Service and Revenue matters. He had specialization in Civil Revenue and Service cases.⁴ He served as a Standing Counsel of State of Uttar Pradesh, Yarn Company Limited, Kanpur, Northern Railway Primary Co-operative Bank Ltd., U.P. State Textile Corporation Ltd., U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills Federation Ltd. and Bundelkhand University of Jhansi.⁵ His knowledge and comprehensive understanding of various branches of law set him apart as a legal luminary.

Judicial Journey — From High Court to Supreme Court

Justice Murari’s judicial career took flight in 2004 when he was appointed as an Additional Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 07-01-2004. He later became the Permanent Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in 2005.⁶ During his tenure, he presided over multitude of cases that encompassed diverse areas of law, including Constitutional Law, Civil Law, Criminal Law, Administrative Law, and PIL.

In recognition of his outstanding contribution to the field of law, Justice Murari was elevated to the position of Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in 2018.⁷ During his tenure, he implemented several reforms to streamline the judicial process, improve case management, and enhance the efficiency of the court system. His proactive approach and emphasis on reducing the backlog of cases earned him accolades from legal practitioners and the general public alike.⁸

Justice Murari's exceptional legal acumen and proven track record led to his appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India on 23-09-2019.⁹ As a Judge of the Supreme Court of India, Justice Murari has continued to make significant contributions to the development of jurisprudence in India.

Important Judgments

Justice Murari is known for his integrity, hard work, dedication and liberal attitude. His proficiency in company matters and consolidation cases as a lawyer was what led to his elevation as a Judge of the High Court of Adjudicature of Allahabad.¹⁰ Some of his prominent Supreme Court and High Courts judgements are discussed below.

Supreme Court Judgments delivered by Justice Murari

In K.B. Tea Product (P) Ltd. v. CTO, Siliguri, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 615, an appeal against the Calcutta High Court judgment and order, wherein the Court has dismissed the writ petitions preferred by the appellants claiming the exemption from payment of sale tax as per earlier West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 1999 (‘1999 Scheme'), the Division bench of MR Shah* and Krishna Murari**, JJ. upheld the impugned judgment of the High Court that on and after 01-08-2001 and in view of the amendment to S. 2(17) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 (‘Act, 1994') by which the definition of “manufacture” is amended and “tea blending” is excluded from the definition of “manufacture”, the appellants shall not be entitled to the exemption from payment of sales tax. However, on the second issue the Justice Murari while giving the dissenting view, opined that the Authority must be held accountable to the legitimate expectation created by it, and therefore, directed the respondents to extend the benefits of the original amendment to the appellants, till the expiry of such a benefit as per the original amendment.

“When a legitimate expectation of a specific outcome is created by a public authority, the said public authority is required to take into account such expectation created by it when making a decision that affects the interests of the individual or group”

In Yamal Manojbhai v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 565, where the Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether a settlement remedy under S. 127B of the Customs Act, 1962, would be available for the seized goods, which are specified under S. 123 of the said Act, the bench of Krishna Murari and Sanjay Karol, JJ gave a spilt verdict and referred the matter to a larger bench.

In Salim Valimamad Majothi v. State of Gujarat, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 659, a Special Leave to Petition seeking interim relief against the judgment and order dated 14-11-2022 passed by Gujarat High Court dismissing application by the petitioner while granting bail to other accused in offences under Ss. 8(c), 20(b) & 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act'), the Division Bench of Krishna Murari and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. considered the medical condition of petitioner in the instant matter, who was on ventilator and recently discharged for lack of proper medical treatment in the prison and granted him bail.

In Ritu Chhabaria v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 502, where a writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner sought bail orders for her husband (‘accused'), the Division-Bench of Krishna Murari* and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ., allowed the petition and the interim bail order was made absolute and held that a chargesheet cannot be filed by an investigating agency without completing the investigation of the case, only to deprive an arrested person of his right to default bail under S. 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

“The right of default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC is not merely a statutory right, but a fundamental right that flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

While setting aside, a freeze order based on a pending criminal case and subsequent bank guarantee imposed on a Foreign Institutional Investor company, a Division Bench comprising Krishna Murari* and Sanjay Kumar, JJ., in Jermyn Capital LLC Dubai v. CBI, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 599, held that bank account of the company cannot be frozen based on a criminal investigation against an unrelated party.

“The purpose of the freeze order, and the bank guarantee in extension of the freeze order, can only be in operation to aid in the investigation against the alleged crime.”

In Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of W.B., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 500, a division bench comprising of Krishna Murari* and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ., held that “the law declared by this Court is binding on everybody but an authority/court seized with a particular case is required to test the facts of that case in order to come to the conclusion that the law declared by this Court is applicable to the facts of the case pending before the said authority or Court.”

While discouraging the practice of filing applications in disposed of SLPs in order to side-step the arbitration process, a division bench of Krishna Murari* and Sanjay Karol, JJ., in Narsi Creation (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 441, reiterated that “the courts normally ought not interfere with arbitral proceedings, especially till the time an award is not passed.”

While deciding an appeal, a division bench of Krishna Murari* and Sanjay Karol, JJ., in Gaddipati Divija v. Pathuri Samrajyam, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 442, held that question as to time being the essence of contract does not arise, when the specific performance of the terms of the contract has not been completed.

While deciding a bail application in Seemant Kumar Singh v. Mahesh PS, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 304, after the single judge Bench of Karnataka High Court criticized the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and the Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) for their lack of enthusiasm, the 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, CJ., Krishna Murari* and Hima Kohli, JJ has observed that the alleged involvement of the ADGP, and the enthusiasm (or lack thereof) of the ACB officers are irrelevant and beyond the ambit of bail proceedings.

In CCE v. A.R. Polymers (P) Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 305, a division bench of Krishna Murari* and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ., held that the mere affixation of MRP does not make goods eligible to find refuge under S. 4(A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and what is required along with such affixation is a mandate of law that directs the seller to affix such MRP.

In R. Sundaram v. T.N. State Level Scrutiny Committee, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 287, where the appellant was not heard before his community certificate was declared to be fake and that too belatedly, the Division bench of Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari*, JJ has held that where the validity of a community certificate is put to question, keeping in mind the importance of the document and the effect it has on people's rights, the proceedings questioning the document cannot, except in the most exceptional circumstances, be done ex-parte.

“The Constitution of India guarantees certain rights to people from Scheduled Tribe communities on grounds of historical injustice, and for the translation of such rights from paper to real life, the community certificate in most cases becomes an essential document. This certificate, whilst being an acknowledgment of history, is also a document that tries to rectify such historical injustice by becoming a tool that fabricates constitutional rights into reality.”

In Muruly M.S. v. State of Karnataka, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 224, a Miscellaneous Application seeking clarification of Court's order restricting transfer/sale/gift/entrustment of elephants being confined to Karnataka, the Division Bench of Krishna Murari* and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. referred to other PILs filed before various High Courts and upheld the Tripura High Court's decision of constituting a High-Powered Committee and extended its powers across the Country in public interest and for advancement of the cause of welfare, care and rehabilitation of wild animals.

In Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 162, the division bench of Krishna Murari* and S. Ravindra Bhar, J.J., held that creating an artificial classification of ‘pushtaini' and ‘gair-pushtaini' landholders was bad in law and created a dissonance between the object and the effect of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

In B.V. Seshaiah v. State of Telangana, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 96, a Division bench comprising of Krishna Murari* and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ has set aside the conviction by the Trial Court and has held that the Telangana High Court could not have confirmed the conviction when the parties had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding for amicable settlement of dispute, leading to compounding the offence.

“This is a very clear case of the parties entering into an agreement for compounding the offence to save themselves from the process of litigation. When such a step has been taken by the parties, and the law very clearly allows them to do the same, the High Court then cannot override such compounding and impose its will.”

In Mohd. Sabeer v. U.P. SRTC, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1701, the Division bench of Krishna Murari* and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ., observed that while awarding compensation in cases of permanent disability caused to claimants, the courts must look at the case in totality, and must consider the socio-economic background of the claimants.

“Persons from marginalised sections of the society already face severe discrimination due to a lack of social capital, and a new disability more often than not compounds to such discrimination. In such circumstances, to preserve the essence of justice, it becomes the duty of the Court to at the very least restore the claimant as best as possible to the position he was in before the occurrence of the disability, and to do so must award compensation in a liberal manner.”.

In Pawan Kumar Goel v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1598, the Division bench of Krishna Murari* and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ., observed that it is necessary to specifically aver in a complaint under S. 141 that at the time the offence was committed, the person accused was in charge of, and responsible for the conduct of business of the company. This averment is an essential requirement of S. 141 and has to be made in a complaint. Without this averment being made in a complaint, the requirements of S. 141 cannot be said to be satisfied.

While deciding matter registered under S. 498A of the IPC, the Division bench of M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari*, JJ. discussed the nexus between offences under Ss. 498A and 306 of IPC in Mariano Anto Bruno v. State, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387. The Court reiterated that “Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life.”.

In Katta Sujatha Reddy v. Siddamsetty Infra Projects (P) Ltd., (2023) 1 SCC 355, the 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, CJ., Krishna Murari* and Hima Kohli, JJ., held that the 2018 amendment to the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is prospective and cannot apply to those transactions that took place prior to its coming into 01-10-2018.

In an important judgment of Akella Lalitha v. Konda Hanumantha Rao, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 928, the Division bench of Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari*, JJ has held that the mother, who is the only natural/legal guardian of the child after the death of the biological father can decide the surname of the child. She can even give him the surname of her second husband whom she remarries after the death of her first husband and can she give the child for adoption to her husband.

“A name is important as a child derives his identity from it and a difference in name from his family would act as a constant reminder of the factum of adoption and expose the child to unnecessary questions hindering a smooth, natural relationship between him and his parents. We, therefore, see nothing unusual in Appellant mother, upon remarriage having given the child the surname of her husband or even giving the child in adoption to her husband.”

In Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P., (2022) 8 SCC 559, a murder case where the Allahabad High Court had granted bail to the main accused, a history sheeter, only on the basis of parity, the 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, Krishna Murari* and Hima Kohli, JJ., cancelled the bail after observing that the High Court should have taken into consideration factors like the criminal history of the accused, nature of crime, material evidences available, involvement of accused in the said crime, recovery of weapon from his possession, etc.

“There is certainly no straight jacket formula which exists for courts to assess an application for grant or rejection of bail but the determination of whether a case is fit for the grant of bail involves balancing of numerous factors, among which the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment and a prima facie view of the involvement of the accused are important.”

In Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of W.B., (2022) 7 SCC 124, a Division bench comprising of S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari*, JJ., reversed the impugned order of the Calcutta High Court for being affected with the vice of forum shopping. The Bench expressed, “The timeline of filing complaints clearly indicates the malafide intention of Respondent 2 which was to simply harass the petitioners so as to pressurise them into shelling out the investment made by Respondent 2.”

In Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599, a dowry demand and harassment case, where a woman had lodged criminal complaint against her husband and in-laws but no specific role was attributed to the in-laws, the Division bench of SA Nazeer and Krishna Murari*, JJ held that it would be unjust if the in-laws are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial and that general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. The Court observed that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged.

In Arunachala Gounder v. Ponnusamy, (2022) 11 SCC 520, a Division bench of SA Nazeer and Krishna Murari*, JJ., held that if a female Hindu dies intestate without leaving any issue, then the property inherited by her from her father or mother would go to the heirs of her father whereas the property inherited from her husband or father-in-law would go to the heirs of the husband. However, if she dies leaving behind her husband or any issue, then S. 15(1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 comes into operation and the properties left behind including the properties which she inherited from her parents would devolve simultaneously upon her husband and her issues as provided in S. 15(1)(a) of the Act.

“The basic aim of the legislature in enacting Section 15(2) is to ensure that inherited property of a female Hindu dying issueless and intestate, goes back to the source”

In Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 873, a case where a 14-year-old had committed suicide after his PTI Teacher had allegedly “harassed and insulted him in the presence of everyone”, the Division bench of SA Nazeer and Krishna Murari*, JJ held that the suicide note suggested that it was a rhetoric document, penned down by an immature mind and that it was the hypersensitive temperament of the deceased which led him to take such an extraordinary step. The Court said that the action of the teacher, otherwise would not ordinarily induce a similarly circumstanced student to commit suicide.

“A simple act of reprimand of a student for his behaviour or indiscipline by a teacher, who is under moral obligations to inculcate the good qualities of a human being in a student would definitely not amount to instigation or intentionally aid to the commission of a suicide by a student.”

While refusing to interfere with the judgment passed by the Gujarat High Court whereby the appellants (husband and mother-in-law of the deceased) were found guilty of committing cruelty to the deceased and abetting suicide committed by the deceased in Gumansinh v. State of Gujarat, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 660, a Division Bench of S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari*, JJ., noted that although the prosecution failed to adduce any direct evidence to establish that accused abetted deceased into committing suicide, but “in the case at hands, the evidence clearly establishes the offence of cruelty or harassment caused to the deceased and thus the foundation for the presumption [under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act] exists. Admittedly the appellants have led no evidence to rebut the presumption.”

In Neelima Srivastava v. State of U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 610, a Division Bench of S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari*, JJ. held that there is a distinction between overruling a principle and reversal of the judgment and reaffirmed the settled position of law that “Mere overruling of the principles, on which the earlier judgment was passed, by a subsequent judgment of higher forum will not have the effect of uprooting the final adjudication between the parties and set it at naught”.

While deciding whether an ex-employee of the ‘Financial Creditor' having rendered services in the past, should not be permitted to act as ‘Interim Resolution Professional' at the instance of such ‘Financial Creditor', regard being had to the nature of duties to be performed by the ‘Interim Resolution Professional' and the ‘Resolution Professional', the 3-Judge Bench of Arun Mishra, B.R. Gavai and Krishna Murari*, JJ., in SBI v. Metenere Ltd., (2021) 1 SCC 191, set aside the NCLAT's order with regards to the appointment of Resolution Professional and held that new Resolution Professional be appointed by the NCLT in accordance with the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

In Sahir Sohail v. Dr A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, (2020) 9 SCC 696, the 3-judge bench of SA Kaul, Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari*, JJ., ‘reluctantly' dismissed an SLP arising out of a Allahabad High Court order which held that the students with certificates from ‘bogus and fictitious' organisations cannot be allowed to continue pursuing their courses at Dr APJ Abdul Kalam Technical University (APJAKTU).

“We do have sympathy but this is not a case where we can really translate our sympathy to a relief in the present case, more so, in view of the fact that since this exam system is found to be fraudulent, the petitioners before us will never have a recognized plus two status and to give such students the opportunity to get a degree from the University will create a great anomaly.”

A 3-judge bench comprising of Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ., in Prashant Bhushan, In re, (2021) 1 SCC 745, held advocate Prashant guilty of criminal contempt after he criticized the Supreme Court and the sitting and former CJIs in a couple of tweets and in Prashant Bhushan, In re, (2021) 3 SCC 160, has sentenced advocate Prashant Bhushan with a fine or Re.1/­ (Rupee one) to be deposited with the Registry by 15.09.2020, failing which he shall undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of three months and further be debarred from practising in this Court for a period of three years.

While deciding the issue in Nirmala Kothari v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 4 SCC 49, i.e., “what is the extent of care/diligence expected of the employer/insured while employing a driver?”, a Division Bench of Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari*, JJ., held that while hiring a driver the employer is expected to verify if the driver has a driving license. If the driver produces a license which on the face of it looks genuine, the employer is not expected to further investigate into the authenticity of the license unless there is cause to believe otherwise. If the employer finds the driver to be competent to drive the vehicle and has satisfied himself that the driver has a driving license there would be no breach of S. 149(2)(a)(ii) and the insurance company would be liable under the policy

Judgments where Justice Murari was part of the Supreme Court Bench

Putting an end to the Maharashtra's Political Crisis that was witnessed by the nation after the split between Eknath Shinde and Uddhav Thackeray factions within Shiv Sena, leading to a change in the State government in the year 2022, the five Judge Constitution Bench of Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud*, CJI and M.R. Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and P.S. Narasimha JJ., in Subhash Desai v. Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 607, has upheld the Governor's decision of inviting Eknath Shinde to form the Government in the State and has refused to quash Uddhav Thackeray's resignation as it was submitted voluntarily before the floor test.

“The political imbroglio in Maharashtra arose as a result of party differences within the Shiv Sena. However, the floor test cannot be used as a medium to resolve internal party disputes or intra party disputes. Dissent and disagreement within a political party must be resolved in accordance with the remedies prescribed under the party constitution, or through any other methods that the party chooses to opt for. There is a marked difference between a party not supporting a government, and individuals within a party expressing their discontent with their party leadership and functioning.”

In Y. Balaji v. Karthik Desari, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 645, a case related to Cash for Job Scam, the Division bench of Krishna Murari and V. Ramasubramanian*, JJ. allowed the appeals arising out of the order for de novo investigation and set aside the directions issued in the original petition for de novo investigation.

In Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 606, a matter concerning administrative control over transfers and postings of civil servants in National Capital Territory of Delhi (‘NCTD'), the Constitution bench of Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud*, C.J., M.R. Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and P.S. Narasimha J.J. held that the Delhi Government has administrative control over transfers and postings of civil servants in the National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD).

In S.P. Velumani v. Arappor Iyakkam, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 663, case where the Madras High Court had ordered an enquiry and obtained a report without furnishing a copy thereof to Tamil Nadu Minister SP Velumani in a corruption case and unceremoniously closed the writ petition, the 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, CJ* and Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli, JJ has held that when the State has not pleaded any specific privilege which bars disclosure of material utilized in the earlier preliminary investigation, there is no good reason for the High Court to have permitted the report to have remained shrouded in a sealed cover.

In N. Jayasree v. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 967, the Division Bench of S. Abdul Nazeer* and Krishna Murari, JJ., held that neither the percentage of deduction for personal expenses be governed by a rigid rule or formula of universal application nor does it depend upon the basis of relationship of the claimant with the deceased. Passing a landmark decision, the Bench granted compensation to the mother-in-law of the deceased considering her to be of the dependents of the deceased. The Bench remarked,

“It is not uncommon in Indian Society for the mother-in-law to live with her daughter and son-in-law during her old age and be dependent upon her son-in-law for her maintenance.”

In Samir Agrawal v. CCI (Cab Aggregators Case), (2021) 3 SCC 136 , a matter seeking inquiry into the alleged anti-competitive practices of Ola and Uber of entering into price-fixing agreement, the 3-judge bench of RF Nariman*, KM Joseph, Krishna Murari, JJ., has refused to interfere with the concurrent finding of CCI and NCLAT that Ola and Uber do not facilitate cartelization or anti-competitive practices between drivers, who are independent individuals, who act independently of each other, so as to attract the application of section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002.

While deciding the question whether the Parliament was competent to enact the National Highways Act, 1956 and the National Highway Authority of India Act, 1988 for construction of new roads traversing through the open green-fields, the 3-judge bench of AM Khanwilkar*, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ., in Project Implementation Unit v. P.V. Krishnamoorthy, (2021) 3 SCC 572, held that “there is nothing in the Constitution which constricts the power of the Parliament to make a law for declaring any stretch/section within the State not being a road or an existing highway, to be a national highway. Whereas the provisions in the Constitution unambiguously indicate that the legislative as well as executive power regarding all matters concerning and connected with a highway to be designated as a national highway, vests in the Parliament and the laws to be made by it in that regard.”

A 3-judge bench comprising of AM Khanwilkar, BR Gavai* and Krishna Murari, JJ., in Kalparaj Dharamshi v. Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd., (2021) 10 SCC 401, held that the commercial wisdom of Committee of Creditors (CoC) is not to be interfered with, excepting the limited scope as provided under Ss. 30 and 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The Court held that the legislative scheme is unambiguous. The legislature has consciously not provided any ground to challenge the “commercial wisdom” of the individual financial creditors or their collective decision before the Adjudicating Authority and that the decision of CoC's ‘commercial wisdom' is made non-justiciable.

In Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police, (2020) 10 SCC 439, a 3-judge bench of SK Kaul*, Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari, JJ has, 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.

“Each fundamental right, be it of an individual or of a class, does not exist in isolation and has to be balanced with every other contrasting right. It was in this respect, that in this case, an attempt was made by us to reach a solution where the rights of protestors were to be balanced with that of commuters.”

Notable Judgements of the High Courts

In Subhash Kapoor v. State of Punjab, 2018 SCC OnLine P&H 1517, the petitioner prayed that the State Government should be commanded to declare an area in question as a protected monument and to preserve it accordingly. A Division bench of Krishna Murari*, CJ. and Arun Palli, J. dismissed the petition as the issue raised was beyond the scope of PIL.

While deciding the issue whether the Appropriate Authority to be constituted under S. 17 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 for any part of the State or the Union Territory is to be a multi-member body or a single member body, in Zoni Jain v. State of Punjab, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 6262, a 3-judge bench of Krishna Murari,* C.J. and Mahesh Grover and Arun Palli, JJ., held that appointment of multi-member Appropriate Authority for a part of the State or the Union Territory shall advance the purpose of the Act while removing the mischief observed in the functioning of the enactment which lead to making large scale amendments.

In Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 296, a case related to professional misconduct, a Division bench comprising of Krishna Murari,* C.J. and Arun Palli, J. held that when respondent did not admit the complaint or any part thereof and the complainant did not appear to support the complaint, the Council committed error in law in proceeding to act based on the complaint and therefore, the Court cannot uphold the findings holding the respondent guilty of professional misconduct.

While dismissing an application for condonation of delay in State of Haryana v. H.C. Verma, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 326, a Division bench comprising of Krishna Murari,* C.J. and Arun Palli, J. held that “A litigant, be it a State, cannot be allowed to choose its own timing for approaching the Court. If the law prescribes a limitation, then that has to be followed and the delay is only liable to be condoned if there exists reasonable and plausible explanation for the same. It is not to be forgotten that on account of the delay caused vested rights get created in the other side which cannot be taken away lightly unless there exists a reasonable explanation for the delay.”

In Ceigall Gawar (JV) A-898 v. State of Punjab, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 628, a Division bench comprising of Krishna Murari,* C.J. and Arun Palli, J. observed that “the prescription of the conditions in a tender document is within the domain of the employer and cannot be objected to unless the tender conditions are arbitrary or perverse. The decision making process cannot be challenged, except, where it is shown to be mala fide or for collateral reasons” and held that in the present case the neither the tender conditions nor the procedure followed for finalizing the bid was arbitrary, irrational or against the public interest and the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the tender, when he participated in the tender process without objecting to the tender conditions.

While dismissing a writ petition seeking a probe by an independent agency into Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath's alleged role in the 2007 Gorakhpur communal violence, a Division Bench comprising of Krishna Murari* and Akhilesh Chandra Sharma, JJ., in Parvez Parwaz v. State of U.P., 2018 SCC OnLine All 6588, upheld the State’s refusal of sanction for prosecution of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath as the Court did not find any discrepancies in the investigation or in the State government's decision.

“…grant of sanction is an administrative function and the validity of sanction depends upon the fact that entire material has been placed before the sanctioning authority and the same has been perused by the authority and there has been proper application of mind before recording the satisfaction whether sanction is liable to be granted or refused.”

A Division Bench comprising of Krishna Murari* and Akhilesh Chandra Sharma, JJ., in Parvez Parwaz v. State of U.P., 2017 SCC OnLine All 2509, prohibited the media from reporting on proceedings of the 2008 Gorakhpur hate speech case as the same is misquoted and causing lot of embarrassment.

While deciding an issue whether the definition of ‘family' in R. 2(c) of U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 is inclusive or exhaustive, In Shehnaj Begum v. State of U.P., 2013 SCC OnLine All 14026, a 3-judge bench of Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, Krishna Murari* and Sunita Agarwal, JJ., held that “by specifying the relations in reference to family the intention appears to be to make the definition exhaustive. If it had been the intention to bring within the ambit of word ‘family' all the relations, it was unnecessary to specify some of them”, therefore, the definition of the family in R. 2(c) of U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 is exhaustive.

While deciding whether a Pradhan is required to be associated in the preliminary enquiry under the proviso to S. 95(1)(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act and whether an opportunity is necessary to be provide, in case preliminary enquiry is adverse to the Pradhan, before passing an order ceasing financial and administrative powers of the Pradhan, a 3-judge bench comprising of Yatindra Singh, Rajes Kumar and Krishna Murari, JJ., in Vivekanand Yadav v. State of U.P., 2010 SCC OnLine All 2702, held that “a Pradhan is neither entitled to be associated in the preliminary enquiry nor is entitled to the copy of the preliminary report. However, before an order ceasing the financial and administrative power is passed, his explanation or point of view or the version to the charges should be obtained and considered.”

In Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corpn. v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 15436, a Division Bench of Krishna Murari* and Ashwani Kumar Mishra,* JJ., held then the employer agrees to deduct the instalment from the monthly salary of the employee who are borrower and to remit it to the bank, then he is not a borrower or guarantor and therefore, is not under any liability of repayment when the employee-borrower is dismissed from the service. The Court held that the recovery of the outstanding dues of the borrower being made from the employer as arrears of land revenue, is patently illegal and not liable to be sustained.

In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Resha Devi, 2016 SCC OnLine All 1242, a matter related to compensation on account of death in a motor accident, a Division Bench of this Court comprising of Hon’ble Krishna Murari and Prashant Kumar, JJ., held that “there can be no exact uniform rule for measuring the value of the human life and the measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. Obviously award of damages would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances of the case but the element of fairness in the amount of compensation so determined is the ultimate guiding factor.”

While deciding the validity of a government order imposing a condition to include his/her spouse as a co-owner compulsorily in the conveyance deed to be executed in favour of allottees of a property by U.P. Avas and Vikas Parishad and other Development Authorities, a Division bench comprising of Krishna Murari* and Ashok Kumar*, JJ., in Ravindra Kumar Gautam v. State of U.P., 2018 SCC OnLine All 6493, held that the impugned government order 1 is not only arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, but also infringes the right to acquire property guaranteed by Article 300-A of the Constitution, therefore is liable to be quashed.

“…the condition of compulsorily joining the spouse of the applicant as a co-owner, is also arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, inasmuch as it only requires a spouse to join as co-owner discriminating other family members related by blood, such as father mother, brother or sister. This is not only arbitrary and hostile discrimination but appears to have no nexus with the purpose sought to be achieved, namely, sustaining the – social relations between the family providing strength to the social binding.”

Legal conferences, seminars, and workshops

Justice Krishna Murari’s dedication to the principles of justice extends beyond the courtroom. He is actively involved in various legal and academic activities and participated in various legal conferences, seminars, and workshops, sharing his profound knowledge and expertise with fellow jurists and legal practitioners. His commitment to legal education and mentoring young minds has inspired and nurtured a new generation of legal professionals.

Krishna Murari as Chief Justice, Punjab & Haryana High Court, while addressing a regional conference in Chandigarh expressed concern over the rise in the number of cases of crime against women and children in Punjab and Haryana and emphasized on the need for speedy disposal trial in crime against women and children and drug cases. Justice Murari said that the two categories are related to each other as “drug addicts are often caught for crime against women and minors”.¹¹

While discussing the historical evolution of the Supreme Court of India and its preceding courts, including the Federal Court and Privy Council at a lecture organised by Aligarh Muslim University on “Supreme Court and the Evolution of Indian Constitution”, Justice Murari said that “an important facet of protection of fundamental rights and constitutional values is the role played by the members of the bar over the year.”¹²

While addressing a legal seminar on “Young Lawyers: Transcending Legal Barriers” organised by the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, Justice Murari said that advocacy is not a profession but a practice of living with austerity and contentment of public service. Justice Murari addressed the young lawyers and said that “material things are not the measure of one's success. What matters is how satisfied you are with your work. There is no shortcut to success. A lawyer can give direction not only to a case but to the whole society, as has been done since time's immemorial.”¹³

Initiatives and Achievements

Immediately after taking charge as the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Justice Krishna Murari launched IT initiatives like e-Payment of High Court Services, Android based Mobile Application, Online Grievance & Feedback System, Surety Information Management System, Infrastructure Web Application, Crystal Reports Software and e-notices, for ease of litigants and lawyers. Justice Murari said that Litigant is an important stakeholder in any judicial system, and it is the duty of the Court to redress his/her grievances and take his/her suggestions to improve further.¹⁴

Justice Krishna Murari, as the Chief Justice, Punjab and Haryana High Court also took the initiative to direct the police and state authorities to come out with a security plan for the judicial officers in the districts of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh after the wife and son of a Gurgaon Additional District and Sessions Judge was gunned down.¹⁵

Furthermore, Justice Krishna Murari, the then Chief Justice, Punjab and Haryana High Court and other senior judges of the High Court took initiative to contribute Rs.10, 000 each in ‘Kerala Chief Minister's Distress Relief Fund' and raised approximately Rs 1.5 crore for flood victims in Kerala.¹⁶

Legacy

Justice Krishna Murari has undoubtedly made a significant impact on the Indian judiciary through his distinguished career as a Supreme Court Judge. His unwavering commitment to justice, fairness, and upholding the rule of law has made him a beacon of hope for those seeking justice. As the Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, he embarked on an ambitious mission to enhance the efficiency and accessibility of the judicial system and introduced various innovative measures. His efforts were lauded by both legal professionals and litigants as they witnessed a marked improvement in the efficiency and effectiveness of the judicial process. His legacy will continue to inspire and guide future generations of jurists as they strive for a just and equitable society and his profound impact on the Indian judicial system will forever be cherished.

* Judge who has penned the judgment.

---