Know Thy Judge | Justice Sunita Agarwal: Second Woman Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court

Gujarat High Court got its new Chief Justice 4.5 months after the retirement of the former and first woman Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court, Justice Sonia G. Gokani. On 23-07-2023, another distinguished woman took over the reins of the High Court as its new Chief Justice. Justice Sunita Agarwal, formerly a Judge of Allahabad High Court, was sworn in as the 29th Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court. Governor of Gujarat, Acharya Devvrat, administered the oath of office to Justice Sunita Agarwal at a ceremony at Raj Bhavan in Gandhinagar, which was attended by Chief Minister Bhupendra Patel, Speaker of Gujarat Legislative Assembly Shankar Chaudhary, and Minister of Law and Justice Rushikesh Patel.¹

Did you Know? Justice Sunita Agarwal is the 2nd woman to become Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court. Her predecessor, Justice Sonia G. Gokani was the First woman to hold the office of Gujarat High Court’s Chief Justice.²

Early Life, Advocacy and Judgeship

Born on 30-04-1966, Justice Sunita Agarwal graduated in Law from Awadh University in 1989. She enrolled as an advocate on 16-12-1990 and practised in the Civil side at Allahabad High Court. ³

After a dedicated practice of 21 years, Justice Sunita Agarwal was elevated as Additional Judge on 21-11-2011 and later took oath as Permanent Judge on 06-08-2013. ⁴

Retirement of Gujarat High Court’s 28th Chief Justice, Justice Sonia G. Gokani in February 2023 created a vacancy for the post. The Supreme Court Collegium comprising of Chief Justice of India, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sanjiv Khanna took into consideration the fact that Justice Sunita Agarwal is the senior-most puisne Judge in her parent High Court (Allahabad High Court) and has accumulated experience of 12 years in dispensing justice in the largest High Court⁵ in the country. The Collegium also considered that her elevation would enhance the representation of women in Indian Judiciary⁶.

Did you Know? Currently, Justice Sunita Agarwal is the only woman Chief Justice of a High Court, as there is no woman among the Chief Justices of the High Courts of India.⁷

Based on the afore-stated considerations, on 05-07-2023, the Collegium recommended the name of Justice Sunita Agarwal for the post of Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court. Ministry of Law and Justice accepted the recommendation and on 23-07-2023, Justice Sunita Agarwal took oath as 29th Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court.

Notable Judgements

Did you Know? Elevation of Justice Sunita Agarwal, as Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court means that Allahabad High Court now has second Chief Justice among the Chief Justices of the High Courts of India.⁸

Kanpur Bar Association Strike| Seven-Judge Bench of Allahabad HC directs Kanpur Lawyers to resume work

In Zila Adhivakta Sangh Allahabad, In re, 2023 SCC OnLine All 128, 7-Judge Bench of Pritinker Diwaker, C.J. Sunita Agarwal, Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Manoj Kumar Gupta, Anjani Kumar Mishra, Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, JJ. while issuing notices, directed the lawyers to resume their work forthwith and to remove the contempt and warned that in case any hindrance is created by any of the lawyer or office bearers, then it would be viewed seriously In the case at hand, the Kanpur Bar Association and the Lawyers’ Association are on continuous strike. Initially they were only boycotting the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Kanpur, but later, they have been boycotting the entire Courts of Kanpur Judgeship since 25-03-2023, hampering the entire judicial work.

Allahabad HC frames Contempt charges against Kanpur Lawyers for continuing strike despite Court orders

In Zila Adhivakta Sangh Allahabad, In re, 2023 SCC OnLine All 128, owing to the continuous strike by the Kanpur Bar Association and the Lawyers’ Association, Kanpur, the 7-Judge Bench of Pritinker Diwaker, C.J. Sunita Agarwal, Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Manoj Kumar Gupta, Anjani Kumar Mishra, Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, JJ. held that the noticees and the other office bearers, prima facie, are in deliberate and wilful contempt of this Court by interfering in the administration of justice, calling illegal strike since 16-3-2023 and thereby paralysing the judicial work in the district judgeship at Kanpur and they have made themselves liable to face contempt proceedings.

“Ancient texts always open to debate; It is beauty of plurality our society practices”: Allahabad HC rejects PIL against re-telecast of Vishnu Puran on alleged misrepresentation of Lord Vishnu

A Division Bench of Sunita Agarwal and Saumitra Dayal Singh, JJ., in Santosh Kumar Jaiswal v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine All 811, declined to restrain the re-telecast of Vishnu Puran, observing that the PIL seem to be filed with mere motive of creating a controversy. Present petition was filed to seek a direction in order to restrain the re-telecast of a few episodes of a serial ‘Vishnu Puran’ on certain channels of the national broadcaster — Doordarshan. Petitioner placed his strong objection towards the representation of certain characters in the above-stated serial, i.e. Lord Vishnu and a lot of other deities have been misrepresented. “…it is undisputed that the objectionable work is basically a work of art for entertainment. It may be based on certain scriptures or ancient works and therefore it may suffer from inaccuracy and mistakes either deliberate or otherwise.”

No CIC charges can be demanded from the company, if there is merely a change in name of the allottee company and no change in shareholding: Allahabad HC

In a writ petition titled Covestro (India) (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine All 41, filed against the demand notice issued by the Manager (Industries), Greater Noida and the consequential proceedings initiated against the petitioner on the premise that there is a change in the shareholding of the allottee company and, as such, the petitioner is liable to pay change in the shareholding charges (‘CIS charges’) as per the policy of Greater Noida, the division bench of Sunita Agarwal and Vipin Chandra Dixit, JJ., held that no CIC charges can be demanded from the petitioner company, if there is merely a change in the name of the original allottee /leasee company and there is no change in the ownership or shareholding of the allottee company. Thus, the demand notice is illegal and contrary to the policy of the Greater NOIDA promulgated by the office order dated 13-7-2021.

Approval of a Resolution Plan does not ipso facto discharge a Personal Guarantor of a Corporate Debtor of his liabilities under Contract of Guarantee; Allahabad HC reiterates

In a writ petition titled Narendra Singh Panwar v. Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine All 19, filed against the demand notice under Section 3 read with Section 5 of the U.P. Government Electrical Undertakings (Dues Recovery) Act, 1958, for recovery of electricity dues of a company, the division bench of Sunita Agarwal and Vipin Chandra Dixit, JJ. held that the challenge to the demand notice for dues of electricity, issued jointly in the name of the Directors of the corporate debtor, the defaulter company which went into insolvency cannot be sustained on the ground that in view of the acceptance of the resolution plan under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (‘IBC’) all liabilities of the Directors, who may be the guarantor, stood automatically discharged/extinguished.

Social, Legal and Moral Responsibility of a man to maintain his wife: Allahabad High Court

The Division Bench of Sunita Agarwal and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ., in Vaibhav Singh v. Divyashika Singh, 2022 SCC OnLine All 577, dismissed and appeal on the admission stage itself which was directed against the order passed by the family court under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in a proceeding for divorce instituted by the appellant husband. It was noted from the impugned order that only Rs. 3000/- per month had been granted towards interim maintenance to the respondent wife apart from Rs. 5000/- towards the cost of the proceeding. Counsel of the appellant had challenged the order contending that the appellant was unemployed and he has no source of income. It was further submitted that the respondent wife has independent income as she is running a medical store along with his father who is a doctor. The Court was of the opinion that the mere fact that the respondent wife is educated and is doing something to survive since she has been thrown out of her matrimonial home cannot be a reason to deny interim maintenance.

Awareness over lockup should be the norm: Court grants stay on arrest of persons booked for violating social distancing norms while distributing food packets

The Division Bench of Sunita Agarwal and Saumitra Daya Singh, JJ., in Munna v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 810, granted partial relief to the petitioners booked for violating social distancing norms while distributing food packets . Petitioners sought quashing of the First Information Report registered for offences under Section 188 and 269 Penal Code, 1860. The allegation in the FIR is that the protocol of social distancing has not been followed by the crowd of 8-10 people who were at a public place and the petitioners against whom the FIR has been filed were members of the said crowd.

No Court can stop release of money required for getting self-employed: Allahabad High Court

The Bench of Sunita Agarwal, J., in Arti v. Additional District Judge, 2019 SCC OnLine All 73, directed against the orders passed by Additional District Judge. The facts of the case were that applicant had filed an application for release of compensation money deposited in a fixed deposit account, which by the judgment of Motor Accident Claim Tribunal was allegedly awarded to petitioner. High Court viewed that the Court below could not have rejected the release application on the ground of non-filing of certificate for the course of beauty parlour as the same is not a certified course but is in the nature of self-employment.