Early Life and Education
Born on 07-07-1965, Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh hails from a family of Judges. He passed B.A. Honours and obtained his LL. B Degree from University of Delhi.
Did you Know? Justice Aparesh Kumar’s Maternal Great Grandfather, Late Justice Bhuvneshwar Prasad Sinha was the 6th Chief Justice of India. His maternal uncles Justice Bisheshwar Prasad Singh and Justice Shiva Kirti Singh were Judges of the Supreme Court of India. Furthermore, his Maternal Grandfather Late Justice Shambhu Prasad Singh was the former Acting Chief Justice of Patna High Court.1
Career as an Advocate
Justice Aparesh Kumar got enrolled as advocate in 1990 and practiced at Patna High Court from 1990 to 2000 and in the High Court of Jharkhand from 20012.
During his practice, Justice Aparesh Kumar appeared in constitutional, civil, criminal, service, arbitration, labour and other matters before the High Courts. Furthermore, Justice Aparesh Kumar also appeared in several important service matters before Central Administrative Tribunal3.
Justice Kumar also represented the Chancellor, Jharkhand State University, before Jharkhand High Court in important matters relating to appointment of lecturers of Jharkhand. He also represented Mineral Area Development Authority, Dhanbad as retained counsel and represented Sidhu Kanhu University, Dumka and other bodies4.
During his years as a counsel, Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh appeared in Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India, (2011) 4 SCC 450, before Full Bench of the Supreme Court presided over by the then Chief Justice of India, Late Justice S.H. Kapadia, wherein the matter relating to interpretation of True Nature of Royalty and the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201, and the law laid down in the seven-Judge Bench decision in India Cement Ltd. v. State of T.N., (1990) 1 SCC 12, had been referred to be placed before a larger 9-Judge Bench.
Justice Aparesh Kumar also appeared in PIL on eradication of leprosy in Jharkhand, which led to significant improvement in prevalence of Leprosy in Jharkhand and also towards improvement of general health care facilities5.
He was also appointed as Amicus Curiae (Friend of Court) in a number of cases by the Jharkhand High Court.
Justice Aparesh Kumar was also a distinguished member of Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority since, 2004 and having actively participated in legal awareness camp Lok adalat, attended several important seminars, conferences and workshops on various subjects.
Justice Aparesh Kumar also has the distinction of preparing a status report on the subordinate judiciary in the Jharkhand, which was published by Judicial Academy, Jharkhand in 20066.
After an illustrious and distinguished career as a counsel, Justice Aparesh Kumar was appointed as Additional Judge of Jharkhand High Court on 24-01-2012 and confirmed as Permanent Judge on 16-01-2014.
He was appointed as Executive Chairman of Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority from April, 2021.
He was also appointed as the Acting Chief Justice of the High Court of Jharkhand from 20-12-2022 to 19-02-2023.
After serving Jharkhand High Court for a decade, Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh took oath as the 8th Chief Justice of Tripura High Court on 17-04-2023.
Tripura High Court institutes suo-motu case to monitor early disposal of criminal cases pending against the Members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies
The Division Bench of Aparesh Kumar Singh, CJ and Arindam Lodh, J., instituted a suo-motu case to monitor early disposal of criminal cases pending against the Members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies in view of the directions contained in the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, (2024) 1 SCC 185. Designated Courts for MPs/MLAs v. XXX, 2023 SCC OnLine Tri 967
“Equity comes to the rescue of those who approach the court for their rights within time and not to the rescue of those who slumber over their rights”: Tripura HC
While considering the instant matter seeking regularisation of service, the Division Bench of Aparesh Kumar, CJ., and Arindam Lodh, J., opined that a person who enters into service in an irregular manner, and if the Government has made provision to regularize the services of such irregularly appointed employee under certain Schemes, then, he/she will undoubtedly acquire right for consideration of regularization of his/her services. However, in case of non-consideration or discrimination, he/she must agitate their right and claim the benefit of regularization before such scheme is repealed. The delayed approach and lackadaisical attitude should not be given a liberal view. “As is well-known – “vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt“ — equity helps the vigilant and not the indolent i.e. equity comes to the rescue of those who approach the court for their rights within time and not to the rescue of those who slumber over their rights”. State of Tripura v. Suprava Debnath, 2023 SCC OnLine Tri 833.
A Single Judge bench comprising of Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. while dealing with a civil writ petition rejected the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment in place of his father’s legally married wife.
The legal issue to be decided was as to whether the petitioner would be covered under the expression ‘son’ and/ or ‘legally adopted son’ under Clause 9.3.3 of Social Security chapter of National Coal Wage Agreement-VII (NCWA-VII), to seek compassionate appointment. Clause 9.3.3 of NCWA- VII provides for employment to the dependent of a deceased employee dying in harness who fall in the category of wife/ husband/unmarried daughter/son/legally adopted son. The Court noted that for the purposes of the said clause, a dependent would mean wife/ husband, unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son. If no such direct dependent is available for employment, brother, widowed daughter/widowed daughter-in-law or son-in-law residing with the deceased and almost wholly dependent on the earnings of the deceased, may be considered to be the dependent of the deceased. It was noted that the categories of dependents included in the clause are those who have a valid and legal relationship with the employee. Nageshwar Turi v. Central Coalfields Ltd., 2018 SCC OnLine Jhar 1207
A Single Judge bench comprising of Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. while dealing with a civil writ petition challenging the termination of services, upheld the order of termination. The High Court opined that in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Surendra Paswan v State of Bihar, (2010) 6 SCC 680, the State government had taken decision to remove /terminate all the chowkidars appointed on basis of inheritance and the principle of law laid in therein was uniformly followed in subsequent cases. Vijay Kumar Paswan v. State of Jharkhand, 2018 SCC OnLine Jhar 1203.
A Single Judge Bench of Aparesh Kumar Singh, J., dismissed a writ petition filed against the order of the respondent authorities whereby petitioner’s claim, for appointment in place of his mother under the Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme, was rejected. The main issue that arose before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to appointment in place of his mother under the Female VRS Scheme.
The Court held that since the scheme was declared unconstitutional, no person can claim benefit under such a scheme. Jitram Manjhi v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., 2018 SCC OnLine Jhar 1448.
A Division Bench of Aparesh Kumar Singh and Anubha Rawat Choudhary, JJ., allowed the petition and sets aside the impugned assessment orders as well as demand notices arising therefrom, which has been passed by treating the petitioner as a consumer of bulk supply of electricity.
The Court pointed out that the term ‘bulk supply’ was defined vide Notification dated 08-10-2011, wherein the supply to industrial units, mines or commercial consumers under high tension energy connection were treated to be “bulk supply”, but the definition of “bulk supply” was amended vide Notification dated 18-06-2012 and the term “commercial consumer” stood deleted and consequently, the term “bulk supply” was confined to energy supplied to industrial units and consumers engaged in mining. Admittedly, the petitioner is neither an industrial consumer, nor a mining consumer. Shroff Enterprises v. State of Jharkhand8.
8. W.P. (T) No. 1282 of 2021