Know Thy Newly Appointed Supreme Court Judge | Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Early Life and Education¹

Born on 01-03-1963, at Imphal, Manipur, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, is the son of (Late) Justice N. Ibotombi Singh of the Gauhati High Court, who was also the first Advocate General of the State of Manipur².

Justice Kotiswar completed his schooling from Ramakrishna Mission Vidyapith, Purulia, West Bengal and Pre- University Course in Science from St. Anthony College, Shillong.

He graduated from Kirori Mal College, Delhi University with B.A. (Hons.) in Political Science in 1983 and obtained his Degree in Law (LL.B.) from Campus Law Centre, Law Faculty, Delhi University in 1986.

Career Trajectory³

Justice N. Kotiswar Singh enrolled as an Advocate in 1986 under the Bar Council of Delhi and later transferred to the roll of the Bar Council of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim. He also attended the Commonwealth Young Lawyers Course after selection under the University of London in 1992.

After practising before the Supreme Court of India for a brief period, Justice Kotiswar shifted his practice to Gauhati High Court. He also practised before the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘CAT’), Gauhati, District Subordinate Courts and various Tribunals in Manipur. Justice N. Kotiswar mainly practiced in Civil, Criminal, Constitutional and Service matters.

Justice N. Kotiswar Singh has served as the Standing Counsel for various institutions/ public undertakings and Government Departments including the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Manipur, Manipur Renewable Energy Development Agency (‘MANIREDA’), Manipur Board of Secondary Education, Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, National Insurance Company Ltd., Allahabad Bank, Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. and Department of Electronics and Accreditation of Computer Courses (‘DOEACC’) Centre, Imphal. He also appeared before several Commissions in Manipur constituted under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952.

He served as the Advocate General of the State of Manipur from 03-11-2007 and was designated as a Senior Advocate on 31-03-2008 by the Gauhati High Court.⁴

Judgeship

Justice N. Kotiswar Singh was elevated to the Bench as the Additional Judge of the Gauhati High Court on 17-10-2011 and was sworn in again as Permanent Judge of Gauhati High Court on 07-11-2012.

Justice Kotiswar was appointed as a Judge of the Manipur High Court upon its creation with effect from 23-03-2013. He was also appointed to perform the duties of the office of Chief Justice of the High Court of Manipur twice⁵. Justice Kotiswar was re-transferred to Gauhati High Court on 11-10-2018 and was later appointed as the Acting Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court⁶.

Justice N. Kotiswar Singh was appointed as the Chief Justice of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court by the President of India on 12-02-2023.⁷ Earlier, the Supreme Court Collegium had recommended his elevation on 13-12-2022⁸. He was sworn in as the 36th Chief Justice of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court⁹ on 15-02-2023. The oath was administered by Lieutenant Governor of Jammu & Kashmir, Manoj Sinha.¹⁰

On 11-07-2024, the Collegium comprising of Dr. Justice DY Chandrachud, CJI, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice B R Gavai, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hrishikesh Roy deliberated over filling up vacancies of judges in the Supreme Court occasioned by the retirement of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice A S Bopanna.

Considering the need to ensure diversity, giving due regard to seniority, merit as demonstrated by their authored judgments and Integrity and performance, the Collegium recommended the name of Justice N. Kotiswar Singh as Judge of the Supreme Court. The Collegium noted that Justice N. Kotiswar Singh has an impeccable record, both in judicial capacity and in terms of the work which has been rendered by him on the administrative side, as the Chief Justice of the High Court for Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.

The recommendation was accepted by the Ministry of Law and Justice and on 16-7-2024, the President of India appointed Justice Kotiswar as Judge of Supreme Court. He took oath of office on 18-07-2024,

*Did You Know? Justice N. Kotiswar Singh is the first Judge from the State of Manipur to be appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court.

Notable Decisions by Justice N. Kotiswar Singh

[Aijaz Ahmad Bund v. State (UT of J&K), 2023 SCC OnLine J&K 298]

In the instant matter the petitioners raised their grievance that various orders relating to welfare of transgenders, that were passed by the High Court from time to time have not been complied with. The Division Bench of N. Kotiswar Singh, CJ., and Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, J., noted that the High Court had passed several orders from 2018 to 2020 on myriad issues concerning transpersons like- reservation in jobs, issues related to education, free medical treatment and enabling inclusive environment for transgender persons in the Union Territory of J&K.

[Hotel Alpine Ridge v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine J&K 238]

The Division Bench of N. Kotiswar Singh, CJ and Wasim Sadiq Nargal, J., taking note of the stringency of SARFAESI Act, called upon authorities to provide equally efficacious redressal forum which is readily, easily and regularly available which will provide relief in a speedy and convenient manner, so that the borrowers and such aggrieved parties can promptly, without undue difficulties, challenge those acts which would have the effect of dispossessing their properties. However, if the redressal forum is not effective, efficacious and readily available, sometimes grave injustice can be caused to the borrowers and debtors, in which event, the High Court can step into prevent injustice by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.

[CST v. Madhuban Glass House, 2023 SCC OnLine J&K 1055]

The Division Bench of N. Kotiswar Singh, CJ and Rahul Bharti, J., answering a reference from Jammu & Kashmir State Sales Tax (Appellate Tribunal) held that each tax invoice, if afflicted with the default as envisaged under Section 69(1)(k), J&K Value Added Tax Act, 2005 is to bear the penalty in reference to it and not in reference to the accumulation of tax invoices and that it has nothing to do with the collection of tax invoices for a particular day. Each default vis-à-vis each particular tax invoice is to earn the liability as envisaged under section 69 (1) (xi) of the VAT Act, 2005.

[Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine J&K 1043]

The Division Bench of N. Kotiswar Singh, CJ and Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, J., taking note of increasing environmental pollution, observed that when it affects the public health if it is ultimately proved, courts cannot afford to deal lightly with cases involving pollution of air and water. Those who discharge noxious chemical detergents into streams, rivers or any other water bodies which inflicts on the public health at large, should be dealt with strictly de hors to the technical objections. Since escalating pollution level of environment affects the life and health of human beings as well as animals, the courts should not deal with such type of issues in a causal or routine manner.

[Athar Mushtaq Khan v. State (UT of J&K), 2024 SCC OnLine J&K 175]

While quashing a detention order of grounds of baselessness and vagueness, the Division Bench of N. Kotiswar Singh, CJ and Wasim Sadiq Nargal, J., stated that Preventive detention laws in India are extraordinary statutes, granting significant power to the State. Such laws can easily lead to arbitrary exercise of authority by the Government. Therefore, it is imperative for the Courts to meticulously scrutinize cases involving these laws, ensuring strict adherence to procedural norms and safeguarding against governmental overreach. Any deviation from procedural requirements should favour the detenu. Courts have a constitutional duty to protect individual and civil liberties, which is paramount. This duty not only upholds the rights of individuals and society but also preserves the foundational principles of our Constitution.

[Abul Kalam v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Gau 2608]

While interpreting the concept of Citizenship under the Foreigners’ Act, 1946 the Division Bench of N. Kotiswar Singh and Manish Choudhury, JJ. held that “Citizenship is one of the important rights of a person. The issue of citizenship of a person should be adjudicated on the basis of merit and on hearing the person concerned, which would also include ‘oral hearing’.”

[Benjongtoshi v. State of Nagaland, 2019 SCC OnLine Gau 5689]

The instant matter pertains to the provisions of Nagaland Retirement from Public Employment Act, 1991 wherein, N. Kotiswar Singh J. held that the principles of natural justice need not be followed if termination of service is on the of implementation of logistic direction.

[Ningombam Rameshwar Singh v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, 2018 SCC OnLine Mani 20]

While disposing of a Public Interest Litigation related to accidents at places storing highly inflammable materials, the Division Bench of N. Kotiswar Singh and K.H. Nobin Singh, JJ. restricted licences to anyone for construction of retail outlet or storage of any inflammable articles, as defined under the Petroleum Acts, 1934 as well as the Inflammable Substances Act, 1952 and the related Acts, till the State Government/relevant authorities frame such safety guidelines including specifying minimum area of open spaces between such storage sites and neighbouring buildings.

[Union of India v. ThongamIbomcha Singh, 2017 SCC OnLine Mani 95]

In an application for deleting the name of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India, N. Kotiswar Singh, ACJ. held that if the Union of India is deleted as a party respondent from the present proceeding, the writ petition itself may suffer from the defect of the non-impleadment of a necessary party, which may be fatal.

[Moirangthem Boboi Singh v. District Magistrate, 2014 SCC OnLine Mani 166]

In a challenge against detention under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, the Division Bench of N. Kotiswar Singh and K.H. Nobin Singh, JJ. said that “it cannot be said that there was proper application of mind by the detaining authority while concluding that the petitioner, who was already under custody, was likely to be released on bail” and found the detention unsustainable in law.

[Himadri Das v. State of Assam, 2011 SCC OnLine Gau 493]

Deciding in favour of muster roll workers, N. Kotiswar Singh, J. held that an order passed in prejudice to the existing rights of a person, fair play and justice requires giving such person show-cause notice prior to passing such an order. It was further added that “Any decision which adversely affects the rights of a person should be informed with reasons.”