Know Thy Newly Appointed Supreme Court Judge: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has carved an illustrious path in the field of law and justice. Let’s delve into his remarkable journey that led him to become the Judge of the Supreme Court of India.

Early Life and Education

Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was born on 02-08-1964, in Guwahati, to Suchendra Nath Bhuyan, who was a highly esteemed Senior Advocate and former Advocate General of Assam.¹ He completed his schooling at Don Bosco High School, Guwahati before pursuing his higher education at Cotton College, Guwahati.²

Justice Bhuyan obtained a degree in Arts from Kirori Mal College, Delhi. He pursued his LL.B. degree from Government Law College, Guwahati and later earned his LL.M. degree from Gauhati University.³

➢ Did you Know? Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has deep interest for acting and music and sporting activities and often expressed his regrets at not being able to play the guitar and not being able to swim⁴.

Career as an Advocate

Marking the beginning of his legal career, Justice Bhuyan enrolled with the Bar Council of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh on 20-03-1991. He practiced law at the Principal Seat of the Gauhati High Court in Guwahati and appeared before its Benches in Agartala, Shillong, Kohima, and Itanagar. His expertise extended to other forums, including the Central Administrative Tribunal in Guwahati, the Assam Board of Revenue, the Labour Court in Guwahati, various Civil Courts, and the State Consumer Forum in Arunachal Pradesh.⁵

Justice Bhuyan’s remarkable legal acumen led him to hold several prominent positions, such as- the Standing Counsel of the Income Tax Department and later Senior Standing Counsel of the Income Tax Department, the Additional Government Advocate of Meghalaya in the Principal Seat of the Gauhati High Court from April 2002 to October 2006, the Special Counsel of the Forest Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, from December 2005 to April 2009 and the Standing Counsel of the Gauhati High Court.⁶ Justice Bhuyan served as the Standing Counsel of the Income Tax Department for a period of 16 years.⁷

The Gauhati High Court designated Justice Bhuyan as a Senior Advocate on 06-09-2010. He was appointed as the Additional Advocate General of Assam on 21-07-2011.⁸

Throughout his career, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan actively participated in various legal associations. He was a valued member of the Gauhati High Court Bar Association, Lawyers Association in Guwahati, Bar Association of India, All India Federation of Tax Practitioners, and Indian Law Institute, Assam Chapter. Justice Bhuyan also has been closely associated with the Judicial Academy, Assam, and the National Law University, Guwahati.⁹

Career as a Judge

Justice Bhuyan’s judicial career began when he was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Gauhati High Court on 17-10-2011. His commendable performance led to his confirmation as a Permanent Judge of Gauhati High Court on 20-03-2013. During his tenure as Judge, Justice Bhuyan also served as the Executive Chairman of the Mizoram State Legal Services Authority.¹⁰

Justice Bhuyan was transferred to the High Court of Bombay and took the oath as a Judge on 03-10-2019.¹¹ He was transferred to the High Court for the State of Telangana and assumed office as a Judge on 22-10-2021. He was entrusted with the responsibility of being the Executive Chairman of the Telangana State Legal Services Authority.¹²

Justice Bhuyan was appointed as the Chief Justice of the High Court for the State of Telangana¹³ and sworn in and assumed charge as the Chief Justice at Raj Bhavan in Hyderabad on 28-06-2022.

On 05-07-2023, the Supreme Court Collegium had recommended the appointment of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan to the Supreme Court of India¹⁴ and on 14-07-2023, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was sworn in as a new Judge of Supreme Court of India.¹⁵ This remarkable achievement reflects his exceptional legal knowledge, integrity, and commitment to delivering justice.

➢ Did You Know? While considering recommending Justice Bhuyan’s name for elevation to the Supreme Court of India, the Collegium gave particular emphasis to his expertise in taxation law.¹⁶

Important Judgments

In V. Vasanta Mogli v. State of Telangana, W.P. (PIL) No. 44 of 2018, decided on 6-7-2023, a case wherein prayer was made to declare Telangana Eunuchs Act, 1329 Fasli (‘Telangana Eunuchs Act’) as ultra vires and unconstitutional, a Division Bench of Ujjal Bhuyan, CJ.* and C.V. Bhaskar Reddy, J., opined that the Telangana Eunuchs Act was violative of the human rights of the third gender community besides being an intrusion into their private sphere as well as an assault on their dignity. It was thus offensive of both right to privacy and right to dignity of transgender persons. Moreover, it was not only violative of Article 14 but also clearly violated Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus, the Court opined that such an enactment could no longer continue to find a place in our statute book and thus, was accordingly declared as unconstitutional.

“Constitutional morality impacts upon any law which deprives the LGBT individuals of their entitlement to a full and equal citizenship. LGBT individuals living under threats of conformity grounded in cultural morality have been denied basic human existence. Constitutional morality does not permit such discrimination and must supersede cultural morality.”

In SKS Micro Finance Ltd. v. State of A.P., 2023 SCC OnLine AP 285, a case wherein the constitutional validity of the Andhra Pradesh Micro Finance Institutions (Regulation of Money Lending) Act, 2011 was challenged on the ground that it was beyond the legislative competence of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature, the Division Bench of Ujjal Bhuyan,* C.J. and C.V. Bhaskar Reddy, J. refused to declare the Andhra Pradesh Micro Finance Institutions (Regulation of Money Lending) Act, 2011 and the Telangana Micro Finance Institutions (Regulation of Money Lending) Act, 2011 as unconstitutional and held that the NBFCs operating in the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh registered with the RBI would be excluded from the purview of the Andhra Pradesh Micro Finance Institutions (Regulation of Money Lending) Act, 2011 and the Telangana Micro Finance Institutions (Regulation of Money Lending) Act, 2011.

While allowing the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in Srico Projects (P) Ltd. v. Telangana State Authority for Advance Ruling, 2022 SCC OnLine TS 1527, for quashing the impugned order dated 03-06-2022 passed by Telangana State Authority for Advance Ruling (‘Authority’) and to consider the application for advance ruling under Section 98 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘CGST’), the division bench of Ujjal Bhuyan*, C.J., and C.V. Bhaskar Reddy, J., held that the investigation post filing of the application will not debar the applicant from seeking an advance ruling.

In VANPIC Ports (P) Ltd. v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2022 SCC OnLine TS 1793, a landmark judgment on Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), a Division bench comprising of Ujjal Bhuyan,* C.J. and Surepalli Nanda, J., while interpreting Sections 5 and 8 of the PMLA, the Court held that on the anvil of both provisions, it was to be examined whether ATPMLA had erred in abdicating its adjudicatory functions, whilst relegating the appellant to Special Court for seeking release of attached properties after having found the attachment to be illegal. The sine qua non for exercising powers under Section 5(1) was found to be that attaching authorities must have “reasons to believe”, recorded in writing, as the basis for inferring that the person is in possession of proceeds of crime, which are likely to be concealed. The reasons to believe must have direct nexus or live link with the material in possession pertaining to above two aspects.

In V. Vijay Sai Reddy v. Enforcement Directorate, 2022 SCC OnLine TS 1604, a single bench of Ujjal Bhuyan,* C.J., while interpreting various provisions of PMLA, specially the non obstante clause of Section 44, held that trial of both the offences viz. that of scheduled/predicate offence and the other one of PMLA offence has to be carried out before the same court. The case related to scheduled/predicate offence even if being tried in another court shall stand committed to the Special Court where the trial arising out of PMLA offence is instituted or pending.

In Ritika Prashant Jasani v. Anjana Niranjan Jasani, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 1802, a Division bench of Ujjal Bhuyan* and Madhav J. Jamdar, JJ., while explaining the provisions under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 also elaborated upon the concept of shared household and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens.

While deciding whether wife’s wish to stay abroad is an act of selfishness and can be a ground for divorce in Prakashchandra Joshi v. Kuntal Prakashchandra Joshi, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 958, a Division Bench of Ujjal Bhuyan and Prithviraj K. Chauhan, JJ., held that wife wishing to stay abroad with the child to maintain her status would not amount to cruelty and desertion when she was already well settled over there.

In Dharmendra M. Jani v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 839, the Division Bench of Ujjal Bhuyan and Abhay Ahuja, JJ., gave a splitting verdict on the constitutionality of Sections 13(8)(b) and 8(2) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Ujjal Bhuyan, J., held that Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act, 2017 was ultra vires the said Act besides being unconstitutional. However, Abhay Ahuja, J., stated that he was unable to share the opinion of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.

“By artificially creating a deeming provision in the form of Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act, where the location of the recipient of service provided by an intermediary is outside India, the place of supply has been treated as the location of the supplier i.e., in India. This runs contrary to the scheme of the CGST Act as well as the IGST Act besides being beyond the charging sections of both the Acts.”

In Parents Teachers Assn. of United Forum v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 793, a Division Bench of Ujjal Bhuyan and N.R. Borkar, JJ., has directed State of Maharashtra to not take any coercive action against the schools for providing online teaching to pupils belonging to Class-II and below who are willing to avail such teaching. Adding to the above, no coercive action shall be taken by the schools against those parents who are not willing to force their children studying in class-II and below for availing online classes.

In Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 732, while quashing an FIR against Republic TV’s Editor-in-Chief, Arnab Goswami, a Division bench of Ujjal Bhuyan and Riyaz I. Chagla, JJ., held that, “Seventy years into our republic we cannot be seen to be skating on thin ice so much so that mere mention of a place of worship will lead to animosity or hatred amongst religious communities causing upheaval and conflagration on the streets.”

While deciding an issue whether medical termination of pregnancy be allowed beyond 20 weeks gestation period, in Rubina Kasam Phansopkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 765, a Division Bench of Ujjal Bhuyan and R.I. Chagla, JJ., denied the termination of pregnancy to woman aged 39 years old as the gestation was beyond 20 weeks and medical board’s report had also recommended the same.

A Division Bench of Ujjal Bhuyan and Milind N. Jadhav, JJ., while addressing an issue with regard to the appointment of a guardian for a person who is lying in the state of coma in Rajni Hariom Sharma v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 880, held that, “the wife can be said to be best suited to be the guardian of her husband who is under a state of incapacity or disability on account of being in a comatose condition or vegetative state.”

In Akram Ali v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Gau 721, a Division Bench comprising of Ujjal Bhuyan* and Rumi Kumari Phukan, JJ., while allowing a writ petition seeking to quash the order of the Foreigners Tribunal on the ground that petitioner’s his lawyer did not inform him about progress of the case, held that litigant should not suffer for the fault of the lawyer.

In Bhim Turi v. State of Assam, 2017 SCC OnLine Gau 813, a case related to appeal against the judgment of the Sessions Court sentencing the appellants-accused under Sections 302/201/34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) to imprisonment for life. for murdering the deceased/victims by suspecting them to be ‘Dainees’ (witches), The Division Bench comprising of Ujjal Bhuyan* and Paran Kumar Phukan, JJ., confirmed the conviction of two accused and acquitted one giving him the benefit of doubt and held that branding of a man or a woman as a witch and then resorting to witch hunting is the most dehumanizing act and is one of the worst forms of human rights violations.

“Witch hunting as a phenomenon is not only confined to the State of Assam; it has affected large parts of the country. It is rooted in flawed quasi-religious beliefs, antiquated socio-cultural traditions blended with extreme superstitions practices. Branding of a man or a woman as a witch and then resorting to witch hunting is the most dehumanizing act and is one of the worst forms of human rights violations. It can have no place in a civilized society. Therefore, witch hunting as a socio-legal problem has to be confronted at multiple levels.”

Justice Ujjal Bhuyan’s elevation to the Supreme Court of India showcases his unwavering dedication to the legal profession. With his vast experience, knowledge, and commitment to justice, we hope he continues to inspire and uphold the values of the Indian judiciary.

*Judge who has penned the judgment.