Justice NV Anjaria Karnataka High Court

On 25-02-2024, Justice Nilay Vipinchandra Anjaria was sworn-in as the 34th Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, thereby succeeding Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar who retired on 24-02-20241.

Early Life and Education2

Justice Nilay Vipinchandra Anjaria was born on 23-03-1965 at Ahmedabad. A native of the picturesque district of Mandvi-Kutch, Gujarat, Justice Anjaria was no stranger to law as he hailed from family of lawyers and Judges (Justice Anjaria’s father was also in judiciary).

Justice NV Anjaria graduated from H.L. College of Commerce, Ahmedabad and he obtained his LL.B degree from Sir L.A. Shah Law College in 1988. Further on Justice Anjaria obtained Masters Degree in Law in 1989 from University School of Law, Ahmedabad.

Career Pursuits3

After obtaining his law degree, Justice Anjaria started his practice in the High Court of Gujarat from August 1988 by joining chamber of celebrated Senior Advocate, Late S.N. Shelat.

During his time as a practising counsel, Justice Anjaria conducted matters involving constitutional issues and all categories of civil cases, labour and service. He was also appointed as Standing Counsel / Panel Advocate for High Court and subordinate Courts, State Election Commission, Gujarat Information Commission, Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, Municipalities, etc.

Furthermore, Justice Anjaria was also a Trained Mediator in the Gujarat High Court Mediation Centre.

Academic Pursuits4

Justice Anjaria established his versatility not only as a lawyer but also was awarded Research Fellowship in 1992 by Late Shri Navinchandra Desai Foundation, Ahmedabad on ‘Freedom of Speech and Expression — With Reference to Media’.

Justice NV Anjaria also rendered his services as Associate Editor of Gujarat Law Herald. Furthermore, his articles, write-ups especially on Constitutional and legal subjects published in books and various reputed Law Journals.

Justice Anjaria also contributed a write-up titled ‘High Court of Gujarat: Advent and Ascent’ in the Souvenir published under the aegis of High Court of Gujarat on the occasion of its Golden Jubilee Celebrations in April 2010.


After serving the High Court with his legal expertise as an advocate for 23 years, Justice N.V. Anjaria was elevated as Additional Judge, High Court of Gujarat on 21-11-2011 and was confirmed as Permanent Judge on 06-09-2013.

He continued to serve his parent High Court in the capacity of a Judge and his competency, impeccable integrity and knowledge in law was rewarded furthermore when the Supreme Court Collegium considered and recommended his name for the post of Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, which was duly accepted by the Ministry of Law and Justice and notified his appointment for the post by the President of India.

Upon the retirement of Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar, Justice Anjaria was then sworn in as the next Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court on 25-02-2024 by Governor of Karnataka, Thaarwar Chand Gehlot5.

*Did you Know? Justice Anjaria is the third Chief Justice that the High Court of Karnataka has witnessed in the duration of 1 month6!

Earlier former Chief Justice, Prasanna B. Varale, was elevated as a judge of the Supreme Court on 25-01-2024 and Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar took oath as Chief Justice on 03-02-2024 and retired on 24-02-2024 after serving for a short duration of 22 days as Chief Justice.

Notable Judgments

Right to food under Art. 21 includes right to food with hygiene: Gujarat High Court dismisses plea to re-open Surat meat shops

In a set of appeals filed by various meat vendors and associations challenging the closure of meat shops, slaughter houses, outlets, hotels by official authorities on grounds of non-compliance with food safety laws and setting up unlicensed shops, the Division Bench of N.V Anjaria* and Niral R. Mehta, JJ., set aside the civil appeals and said that all slaughter houses and meat shops are not ordered to be closed, those who are complying with norms are permitted to run their business. “The freedom to trade or right to do business has to yield the public health norms and the restrictive compulsions needed to be enforced in larger public good. The right to free trade in food items like meat, or any such food has to be subserving to public health and food safety requirements”. Patel Dharmeshbhai Naranbhai v. Dharmendrabhai Pravinbhai Fofani, 2023 SCC OnLine Guj 986

[POCSO] | Lack of legal awareness amongst children, lends them as offenders in serious matters: Gujarat High Court

A Division Bench of Sonia Gokani and N.V. Anjaria, JJ., while addressing matter wherein a minor boy had taken away the minor girl and were missing for a significant amount of time, stated that, “…right kind of understanding needs to be given, in the form of legal awareness amongst the children and college students so that society can simultaneously protect very young minor boys, who due to their lack of understanding of law, turn into the offenders in serious matters.” Vikramsinh Champaksinh Parmar v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 960

“Caste system in the country making it more and more difficult for youth to decide their life partner”: Gujarat High Court extends protection to couple

The Division Bench of Sonia Gokani and N.V. Anjaria, JJ., while addressing a matter for protection of a couple, stated that, caste system in the country is making it more and more difficult for the young people to decide their own life partner and the rigidity in the minds of adults in the family becomes the serious cause of division of human relationship. Further the Court added that it gets difficult for the administration to handle social and emotional upheaval which eventually turn into legal battleground. Niteshkumar Mulchandbhai Prajapati v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 897

Mere apology may be no reason to an act, utterance or publication of contempt which scandalize the majesty of Court; Gujarat HC rejects advocate Yatin Oza’s unconditional apology

A Division Bench of Sonia Gokani and N.V. Anjaria, JJ., rejected the unconditional apology of Advocate Yatin Oza, and observed that, “Entire gamut of facts when dispassionately and objectively viewed, we are unable to accept these words as true words of remorse and contrition and therefore, request to accept apology even if termed as unqualified, cannot be acceded to”. Suo Motu v. Yatin Narendra Oza, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 1175

Gujarat High Court goes beyond the relief sought, helps POCSO victim to become self-sufficient

The Division Bench of Sonia Gokani and N.V. Anjaria, JJ. went beyond the case to help a POCSO victim to continue her further studies from her parental home. Order was issued against a Criminal Misc. Application filed by the desirous victim pleading the Court to allow her to handover the custody of her minor daughter and join her parents. The applicant was called before the Court with her child before passing of the order. Kakiben Raval v. State of Gujarat, 2021 SCC OnLine Guj 2030

Deputy Manager (Law) of a bank, not being an employee working in the “department allied to Court”, ineligible to be a Judge: Gujarat HC

The Bench of N.V. Anjaria, J., dismissed a petition challenging the eligibility criteria in Advertisement No. RC-0719/2019 published by the respondents, for the position of Civil Judge, holding that a Deputy Manager working in the legal branch of a bank could not be treated as an employee working in the ‘department allied to Court’. Rule 7(2)(b) of the Gujarat State Judicial Services Rules, 2005 states that the eligibility required for selection to the position of a Civil Judge. is that a candidate “must be practicing as an Advocate in Courts of Civil and/or Criminal Jurisdiction on the last date fixed for receipt of application; or must be working in the Courts or other allied Departments on the last date fixed for receipt of application.” Avinash Detha v. Registrar, 2019 SCC OnLine Guj 804

Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited (Conferment of Power to Redeem Bonds) Act, 2008 does not fall within Entry 43 in the State List or Entry 20 in the Concurrent List to the Seventh Schedule: Gujarat HC

In determining the legislative competence, and therefore constitutional validity of the Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited (Conferment of Power to Redeem Bonds) Act, 2008, the Bench of Jayant Patel, ACJ and NV Anjaria, J*., held that the impugned Act does not fall within the legislative head or legislative field either under Entry 43 in the State List being ‘Public Debt of the State’ or under Entry 20 in the Concurrent List being ‘Economic and Social Planning’, to the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution nor it traces legislative field even by reading the said two Entries together.

It was further held that the impugned legislation is constitutionally invalid, for, the impugned legislation and the provisions thereof operate in the legislative field already occupied by the competent Central legislation, in particular Securities Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956, Security Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, the Indian Companies Act, 1956 as the provisions of these Central legislations govern the matters and aspects sought to be dealt with and provided for by the impugned legislation.

The State Legislature cannot claim and does not have the legislative competence to enact the impugned law. If the legislative head is to be traced for the impugned legislation, at the best, the same may be traced in Entry 7 in the Concurrent List for the reason that the impugned legislation and the provisions enacted therein deal with the special kind of contract which would be falling within the said Entry. But then even in this purview the State law fails to co-exist and stands in conflict with the Security Contracts (Regulation) Act. Kalyan Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, 2016 SCC OnLine Guj 848

“In acquisition, the Government exercises power of eminent domain”: Gujarat High Court

While considering the petitions praying to issue a writ of mandamus for quashing and setting aside the notification issued under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Bench of NV Anjaria, J., observed that in acquisition, the Government exercises power of eminent domain. Under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the procedure for acquisition is prescribed. If the procedure in law is followed and the notifications acquiring the lands are issued by the State Government have been satisfied on the need as well as on the public purpose of acquisition, the action could not be challenged on the spacious grounds as urged on behalf of the petitioners. Amarsinh Shankerbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2012 SCC OnLine Guj 6209

1. Justice Anjaria takes oath as 34th Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court – The Hindu

2. High Court of Gujarat (gujarathighcourt.nic.in)

3. Supra

4. Supra

5. Justice Anjaria takes oath as 34th Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court – The Hindu

6. Supra

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.