“Independence of the judiciary is not just a legal principle but a fundamental pillar of a vibrant democracy. The Indian judiciary has shown remarkable resilience and determination in maintaining its independence and integrity and discharging its constitutional duties”1
– Justice Hima Kohli
Justice Hima Kohli has had an illustrious legal career marked by numerous achievements and significant contributions to the Legal fraternity. With her retirement on 01-09-2024, she will be leaving behind an empowering legacy of legal excellence, commitment to justice, and a profound impact on the Indian judiciary.
Early Life and Education
Born on 02-09-1959, Justice Hima Kohli was brought up in Delhi. She did her schooling from St. Thomas School and graduated in History (Hons.) from St. Stephens College, University of Delhi in 1979. After getting her postgraduate degree in History from the University of Delhi, she completed her degree in Law in 1984 from the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi.2
As an Advocate
Justice Kohli enrolled as an advocate in the Bar Council of Delhi and started practicing at the Courts in Delhi. She joined the chambers of Sunanda Bhandare, who later elevated to the position of Delhi High Court Judge. On the recommendation of Justice Sunanda Bhandare, she joined the chamber of Y.K. Sabharwal. She then worked at the Chambers of Vijendra Jain till he himself was elevated as Judge of Delhi High Court in 1992 and then continued her practice independently.3
✥ Did you know? All the three lawyers Justice Kohli worked with, i.e., Sunanda Bhandare, Y.K. Sabharwal and Vijendra Jain, became High Court judges while she was working with them.4
In 1999, she was appointed as Standing Counsel for the New Delhi Municipal Council at the Delhi High Court. She held this position until she was appointed as Additional Standing Counsel Civil for the Government of NCT Delhi in 2004. She was also the Legal Advisor to various government and private corporations including Delhi Pollution Control Committee, the National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India, and the National Co-operative Development Corporation. She also provided legal aid services with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.5
✥ Did you know? During her practice, she worked with Dr. Justice M.K Sharma before he became the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court. He guided her through her first few judgements.6
As a Judge
On 29-05-2006, Justice Kohli was appointed as an Additional Judge in the Delhi High Court. She was made Permanent Judge on 29-08- 2007.7 During her tenure as a Judge in Delhi High Court, she wrote several remarkable orders and judgments, including protecting the identity of juveniles accused of crime, calling for inquiries into the detention of prisoners who had already been granted bail, provision of facilities to enable visually challenged people to study in government educational institutions, etc.
✥ Did you know? Justice Hima Kohli was instrumental in passing directions to increase the number of labs to conduct more COVID-19 tests in Delhi and to decrease the wait period for test results from three days to one day.8
Justice Kohli was elevated as the Chief Justice of the High Court for the State of Telangana9 and sworn in on 07-01-2021.10 She was elevated as a Judge of Supreme Court of India on 26-08-2021 and took oath of office on 31-8-2021.11
✥ Did you know? Justice Hima Kohli was the First woman Chief Justice of High Court for the State of Telangana.12
Legal Aid
Justice Kohli has also been deeply involved with legal education and legal aid in India. In 2017, she was on the General Council of the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, in Kolkata. She also served on the council for the National Law University, New Delhi. She became the chairperson of the Delhi State Legal Services Authority from 20-05-2020.13
Advocate for Women’s Rights
Justice Hima Kohli is renowned for her advocacy of women’s rights and empowerment, often extending her influence beyond the courtroom. She was appointed as Chairperson of Supreme Court Gender Sensitisation and Internal Complaints Committee on 31-05-2024, after Chief Justice of India, Dr. DY Chandrachud, in exercise of powers conferred by Regulation 4(2) of the Gender Sensitisation & Sexual Harassment of Women at the Supreme Court of India (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Regulations, 2013 and all other enabling provisions in this behalf, re-constituted the same.14
In Manisha Priyadarshini v. Aurobindo College, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2109, a division bench of Hima Kohli and Asha Menon, JJ., delivered a long-overdue judgment asserting that maternity leave cannot be grounds for dismissal and held that respondents denying extension of female ad-hoc teacher’s tenure is “violative of the basic principle of equality in the eyes of law. It would also tantamount to depriving her of the protection assured under Article 21 of the Constitution of India of her right to employment and protection of her reproductive rights as a woman. Such a consequence is therefore absolutely unacceptable and goes against the very grain of the equality principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 16.” By ensuring that maternity leave is not used as an excuse to fire female workers, Justice Kohli reinforced the need for gender equality in employment practices.
15nother significant case, where Justice Kohli’s judgment stood out was in Vishal Singh v. Priya, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 638, where a Division Bench of Hima Kohli and Asha Menon, JJ., held that adultery can only be committed after marriage, and allegations of relations before marriage do not amount to adultery. Additionally, the Bench concluded that a new bride’s actions, such as staying in her room, reluctance to perform household chores, or being unwilling to engage in a physical relationship, do not constitute cruelty toward the husband. These rulings reflect Justice Kohli’s harmonious approach to the law, balancing liberation with control and gently guiding society forward in a rapidly changing cultural landscape.
Beyond the courtroom, Justice Kohli is a vocal advocate for women’s rights and empowerment. She regularly participates in online webinars, lectures, and other forums to promote gender equality. During a webinar titled “Domestic Violence During Lockdown: An Invisible Pandemic,” organized by the Association of ILI Alumni and the Indian Law Institute, she argued against the need for gender-neutral laws to address domestic violence. She clarified that “in our society, we haven’t reached the point where men have needed protection from women. If there comes a time that women have an upper hand, then we will come to amending the laws. I am not saying there is no misuse. But, this cannot be a ground to throw out the law. We can do as much as we can to nip the misuse at the bud. However, there is no denying that the power structure is in the favour of men”.16
While addressing at a national seminar on ‘Women Empowerment through Sports’, Justice Kohli called for policy reforms to promote women’s empowerment through sports and said that “while judicial pronouncements serve as guiding lights, effective policy reforms are equally essential in promoting women’s empowerment through sports … creating a safe and inclusive environment will send a powerful message to the entire society that women in sports deserve respect, dignity and protection from all forms of discrimination and harassment.”17
In her speech at the Society of Women Lawyers, India, Justice Kohli discussed the challenges faced by women in the Indian judiciary. In a YouTube lecture on the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act, she drew attention to the contradictory treatment of women in the workplace compared to their respected roles in households.18
Promoter of alternative methods of Dispute Resolution
Apart from performing her official duties as a Judge, she has a keen interest in promoting mediation as a mode of alternative dispute resolution; in highlighting the role of the judiciary in preservation of the ecology and environment and role of Family Courts in resolving family disputes. She has participated in and presented papers at several National and International symposiums and conferences on these subjects.19
In a conference “Ease to justice through arbitration and mediation in commercial disputes” organised by the Indian Council of Arbitration, Justice Kohli said that “when we talk of our country, it is on the forefront of businesses and global transactions, and disputes are bound to arise … The quickest and easiest resolution would be through ADR. Enforcement of the ADR award is imperative to keep the economy buoyant.” She further added that “Court litigation has to be the primary focus, but if the alternatives are developed well, it will take the burden off the court. It ensures decision-making and brings closure between the disputing parties. Nothing can be better than that.”20
Notable Judgements
Justice Hima Kohli is widely recognized for her exceptional quality of judgments and her deep understanding of the law, particularly in areas where societal norms intersect with legal principles. She has made significant contributions to the Indian judiciary, most notably through her landmark ruling. Some of her notable judgements are discussed as follows :
Supreme Court
While considering the instant appeals challenging the decision of Special Judge, CBI rejecting their application for seeking discharge in the proceeding to frame charges against them along with the other co-accused, for having entered into a criminal conspiracy aiming to facilitate illegal sale of coal rejects by GCWL that were generated during washing of coal and for gaining undue pecuniary advantage; the Division Bench of Hima Kohli* and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ., reproached the CBI for “Embarking on a roving and fishing inquiry on the strength of the Audit Report of the CAG and then working backwards to sniff out criminal intent against the appellants”.
The Court found that the instant matter had the underpinnings of a civil dispute premised on a contract between the parties, breach of which could at best have led to determination of the contract or even the underlying lease deed; however, the same had been “painted with the brush of criminality without any justification”. The Court strictly pointed out that criminal intent had been threaded into the dispute by the respondent-CBI via misinterpreting the clauses of the agreements governing the parties and by heavily banking on the observations made in the Audit Report of the CAG that has not attained finality till date.
[Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Ltd. v. CBI21]
Supreme Court Verdict on Same Sex Marriage: Breakdown of the Agreements and Disagreements
The 5-judge Constitution Bench of Dr DY Chandrachud, CJI and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S. Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, PS Narasimha, JJ wrote 4 opinions on the Same Sex Marriage/Marriage Equality matter where they agreed on some points and disagreed on others. In a 366 pages long verdict, heavy on words, all judges said in one voice that there was no fundamental right to marry and that the Supreme Court could not enter judicial legislation to read words into the Special Marriage Act and make it a gender-neutral legislation. The Court left it to Parliament to undertake this process. There were however some disagreements on certain points where Bhat, Kohli and Narasimha, JJ formed the majority and Chandrachud, CJI and Kaul, J were in dissent.
CJI Chandrachud who elaborately dealt with the issue in his 247 pages long verdict wrote,
“The Constitution does not expressly recognize a fundamental right to marry. An institution cannot be elevated to the realm of a fundamental right based on the content accorded to it by law. However, several facets of the marital relationship are reflections of constitutional values including the right to human dignity and the right to life and personal liberty.”
Justice Bhat, who wrote for himself and Justice Kohli, also endorsed this view in his judgment and refused to hold that a right to marry automatically flows in the manner from the provisions of Part III which the petitioner asserts.
“There cannot be a per se assertion that there exists an unqualified right to marry which requires treatment as a fundamental freedom.”
[Supriyo v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1348]
In a writ petition filed by the Indian Medical Association (‘IMA’) against Patanjali, its Managing Director — Acharya Balkrishna and its primary proponent, Baba Ramdev stating that they have been indulging in a campaign of misinformation and disparagement against the modern system of medicine in an orchestrated and systematic manner resulting in misleading the common man, the division bench of Hima Kohli* and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ., While closing the contempt proceedings opined that though the initial conduct of the contemnors prior to their tendering an apology to the Court showed that the same was in violation of the undertakings given to this Court, subsequent thereto, after they tendered an unqualified apology, efforts have been made by them to take steps to make amends.
[Indian Medical Assn. v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 645 of 2022]
Can Bail be cancelled by the same Court which granted it in the first place? Supreme Court answers
In a batch of criminal appeals by the complainant against four different orders of the Allahabad High Court allowing regular bail of the present four respondents/ accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 352 and 504 read with Section 34 of Penal Code, 1860, the Division Bench of Hima Kohli* and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned orders. The accused persons were directed to surrender within two weeks from the date of passing of order.
“Bail once granted, ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner, however, an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is open to interference by the superior Court.”
[Ajwar v. Waseem, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974]
In a review petition pertaining to the grant of Permanent Commission to Short Service Commission Officers in the Indian Navy, the division bench of Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud*, CJI. and Hima Kohli, J. has directed that the petitioner should be considered for the grant of Permanent Commission afresh by reconvening a Selection Board. Further, the Selection Board was directed to consider the case of the petitioner on stand-alone basis since it is common ground that she was the only serving JAG Branch officer of the 2007 batch whose case for the grant of Permanent Commission was required to be considered. It also added that the exercise of considering the petitioner afresh for Permanent Commission should be carried out on or before 15-04-2024.
[Seema Chaudhary v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 197]
Explained| Supreme Court’s verdict on master and servant relationship following suspension
In an appeal filed by the workman/ appellant against the order passed by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court, wherein the Court upheld the Single Judge order setting aside the Tribunal’s award directing Punjab National Bank (‘PNB’) to reinstate the workman/ appellant with full back wages along with interest and consequential benefits, the division bench of Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. while upholding the impugned order, said that as per Clause XVI in the Bipartite Agreement the workman could have been treated to have been voluntarily retired immediately upon expiry of 90 days from 28-09-1983 as he had failed to join duty. Despite this, the Bank was magnanimous enough to have issued a final notice to the workman granting him 30 days’ time to report for duty.
“Merely because the Bank had stopped paying subsistence allowance to the workman does not mean that the workman was no more an employee of the Bank.”
[U.P. Singh v. Punjab National Bank, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1681]
“Practice of mentioning caste or religion of litigants should be shunned and ceased”: Supreme Court
While hearing a transfer petition by under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed by petitioner- wife for transferring a petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the respondent-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sri Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Faridkot, Punjab, the Division Bench of Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. noted that the caste of both the parties was mentioned in the memo of parties. The Court directed all the High Courts to ensure that the caste/religion of a litigant does not appear in the memo of parties.
“The caste or religion of parties should not be mentioned in the memo of parties of a petition/proceeding filed before the Court, irrespective of whether any such details have been furnished before the Courts below.”
[Shama Sharma v. Kishan Kumar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 88]
The Mega Political Crisis between Shiv Sena’s Ekanth Shinde and Uddhav Thackrey of Maharashtra
Putting an end to the Maharashtra’s Political Crisis that was witnessed by the nation after the split between Eknath Shinde and Uddhav Thackeray factions within Shiv Sena, leading to a change in the State government in the year 2022, the five Judge Constitution Bench of Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud*, CJI and M.R. Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and P.S. Narasimha JJ., upheld the Governor’s decision of inviting Eknath Shinde to form the Government in the State and has refused to quash Udhav Thackeray’s resignation as it was submitted voluntarily before the floor test.
[Subhash Desai v. Governor of Maharashtra, (2024) 2 SCC 719]
The 5-Judge Constitution bench of Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud*, CJI, M.R. Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and P.S. Narasimha, J.J. held that there does not exist a homogeneous class of Union Territories with similar governance structures; NCTD is not similar to other Union Territories. By virtue of Article 239AA, NCTD is accorded a “sui generis” status, setting it apart from other Union Territories; the Legislative Assembly of NCTD has competence over entries in List II and List III except for the expressly excluded entries of List II. In addition to the Entries in List I, Parliament has legislative competence over all matters in List II and List III in relation to NCTD, including the entries which have been kept out of the legislative domain of NCTD by virtue of Article 239AA(3)(a).
[State (NCT of Delhi) v. Union of India, (2023) 9 SCC 1]
In an appeal against the order passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘NCDRC’) members, Subhash Chandra (presiding member) and Dr. Sadhna Shanker, wherein the two members had issued non-bailable warrants against the directors of Ireo Grace Realtech, despite an interim order by the Supreme Court to not take any coercive action in the matter, the division bench of Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ., has issued show cause notice to the two members, calling upon them to explain how the order was passed on 02-04-2024.
[Ireo Grace Realtech (P) Ltd. v. Sanjay Gopinath, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 558]
In an appeal filed by the State against the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court, wherein the Court set aside the order passed by the Superintendent of Police (‘SP’) communicating to the respondent that he was found to be unfit to be recruited as a constable, after he disclosed his involvement in a criminal case; and relegated the matter back to the competent authority for passing a fresh order, the division bench of Hima Kohli* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. while upholding the judgment dated 17-11-2017, passed by the Single Judge, quashed the impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, and said that even though the respondent had truthfully declared that he was involved in a criminal case, as per the judgement, this was not a case of clean acquittal, as it was based on benefit of doubt. Therefore, it was held that the said decision taken by the State Government is not tainted by any malafides or arbitrariness for the High Court to have interfered therewith.
[State of M.P. v. Bhupendra Yadav, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1181]
When an application was filed by the Union of India seeking to recall the order dated 9-10-2023 allowing medical termination of pregnancy based on report submitted by the Medical Board of AIIMS, this development led the Division Bench of Hima Kohli and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. had contrasting opinions, putting a hold on the orders allowing termination of pregnancy.
Family Planning | Know why the Supreme Court allowed termination of unplanned pregnancy at 26 weeks
In a petition filed under Article 32 of Constitution seeking directions against the authorities to allow medical termination of pregnancy under Sections 3(2)(b)(i), 3(3) and 5 of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (‘MTP Act’) read with Rule 3B of MTP Rules, 2003 in any Government Hospital, the Division Bench of Hima Kohli and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. allowed the instant petition issuing directions for the couple and All India Institute of Medical Sciences (‘AIIMS’) to proceed with MTP procedure at the earliest.
[Poonam Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1333]
Retired employees cannot claim vested right to apply the extended age of retirement retrospectively
In an appeal filed by the members of the teaching faculty (appellants) in Homeopathic Medical Colleges situated in the State of Kerala, against the Judgment passed by the Kerala High Court, declining the prayer of the appellants for enhancing their age of retirement from 55 years to 60 years by extending the benefit of the Government Order dated 14-01-2010 , which increased the retirement age of Doctors in the Medical category with retrospective effect from 1-05-2009, the division bench of Hima Kohli* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. while upholding the impugned judgment, has held that the retired employees cannot claim a vested right to apply the extended age of retirement to them retrospectively and assume that by virtue of the enhancement in age ordered by the State at a later date, they would be entitled to all the benefits including the monetary benefits flowing from GO on the ground of legitimate expectation.
“The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation does not have any role to play in matters that are strictly governed by the service regulations. This is an exercise that is undertaken by the State in discharge of its public duties and should not brook undue interference by the Court.”
[Prakasan M.P. v. State of Kerala, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1074]
With the intent to fulfil the promise that the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 [PoSH Act] holds out to working women all over the country, the bench of AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli*, JJ has issued extensive directions to ensure the implementation of the law after observing that,
“However salutary this enactment may be, it will never succeed in providing dignity and respect that women deserve at the workplace unless and until there is strict adherence to the enforcement regime and a proactive approach by all the State and non-State actors.”
[Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 621]
In a case where a model had alleged casting couch, the bench of AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli*, JJ has set aside the anticipatory bail granted to the accused after noticing that the prosecutrix was denied the meaningful right to hearing by the Bombay High Court. The Court observed that
“The nature and gravity of the alleged offence has been disregarded. So has the financial stature, position and standing of the accused vis-à-vis the appellant/prosecutrix been ignored.”
[X v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 279]
In a case where SCM auctions were conducted for the liquidation sale of assets of the corporate debtor, a 3-judge bench comprising of N.V. Ramana, C.J. and J.K. Maheshwari and Hima Kohli,* JJ., emphasised that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 (CIRP Regulations) specify that the corporate debtor’s assets must be protected and preserved during the liquidation process before being sold at the highest price. There is no right vested with the bidders in liquidation sale beyond the express terms of the offer documents, as the liquidator may elect to undertake private sale of the assets of the corporate debtor, for maximisation of value and a higher and quicker recovery for the stakeholders, to avoid delay, and to provide a guaranteed timeline for completion of the liquidation proceedings. Purely business-based decisions cannot be interfered with in commercial transactions.
[R.K. Industries (Unit-II) LLP v. H.R. Commercials (P) Ltd., (2024) 4 SCC 166]
The 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, CJ and Hima Kohli and CT Ravikumar, JJ has referred, the matter relating to promise of freebies by political parties as a part of their election manifesto or during election speeches, to a larger Bench after observing that,
“Freebies may create a situation wherein the State Government cannot provide basic amenities due to lack of funds and the State is pushed towards imminent bankruptcy. In the same breath, we should remember that such freebies are extended utilizing tax payers money only for increasing the popularity of the party and electoral prospects.”
[Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1098,]
After Enquiry Committee headed by Justice Indu Malhotra, former Judge of the Supreme Court of India, had submitted the report on the alleged breach of security that left Prime Minister Narendra Modi stuck on a highway in Punjab for 20 minutes on 05.01 2022, the 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, CJ and Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, JJ has sent the report to the Central and State Government for appropriate action against delinquent officers.
“War of words between them is no solution. It may rather impair the need of a robust mechanism to respond at such a critical juncture.”
[Lawyers’ Voice v. State of Punjab, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1096]
In a big win for Adani Power Limited, the 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, CJI and Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli*, JJ has directed Haryana Discoms to pay interest on carrying cost in favour of Adani Power for the period between the year 2014, when the FGD was installed, till the year 2021.
[Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Adani Power (Mundra) Ltd., (2023) 2 SCC 624]
The 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, CJ and Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, JJ has appointed an Expert Committee to look into the truth or falsity of the allegations in the Pegasus Spyware case, “taking into account the public importance and the alleged scope and nature of the large-scale violation of the fundamental rights of the citizens of the country.”
“This Court has always been conscious of not entering the political thicket. However, at the same time, it has never cowered from protecting all from the abuses of fundamental rights.”
[Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India, (2023) 11 SCC 401]
The 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, CJI and Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli, JJ has referred the question relating to interpretation of Schedule X of the Constitution pertaining to disqualification, as well as the powers of the Speaker and the Governor and the power of judicial review thereof, to the 5-judge Constitution bench.
[Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, (2024) 2 SCC 825]
In a bail application, after the single judge Bench of Karnataka High Court criticised the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and the Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) for their lack of enthusiasm, the 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, CJ and Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli, JJ has observed that the alleged involvement of the ADGP, and the enthusiasm (or lack thereof) of the ACB officers are irrelevant and beyond the ambit of bail proceedings.
[Seemant Kumar Singh v. Mahesh PS, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1918]
Confessional Statements made under Section 67 of NDPS Act inadmissible
In a case relating to a drug racket spread across three States namely, U.P., Punjab and Rajasthan, the 3-Judge Bench of N. V. Ramana, CJ., and Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli*, JJ., reversed the impugned order of Delhi High Court releasing the respondent-accused on post-arrest bail.
“The length of the period of his custody or the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced are by themselves not considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting relief to the respondent under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.”
[Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 891]
While deciding a case relating to right to private defence, a Division Bench of BR Gavai and Hima Kohli*, JJ., held that the Court’s assessment would be guided by several circumstances including the position on the spot at the relevant point in time, the nature of apprehension in the mind of the accused, the kind of situation that the accused was seeking to ward off, the confusion created by the situation that had suddenly cropped up resulting the in knee jerk reaction of the accused, the nature of the overt acts of the party who had threatened the accused resulting in his resorting to immediate defensive action, etc.
“The underlying factor should be that such an act of private defence should have been done in good faith and without malice.”
[Mahadev v. Border Security Force, (2022) 8 SCC 502]
The Division Bench comprising B.R. Gavai and Hima Kohli, JJ., (Vacation Bench) reversed the order of the Gujarat High Court, by which the applicant was denied the benefit of bail under the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 (GCTOC Act). The Court held that existence of more than one charge sheet against the accused is essential for invoking the provisions of GCTOC Act.
[Mohamad Iliyas Mohamad Bilal Kapadiya v. State of Gujarat, (2022) 13 SCC 817]
The 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, CJ and AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli, JJ has granted liberty to Future Retail Limited (FRL) to approach the Delhi High Court by filing an application seeking continuation of the NCLT proceedings beyond the 8th Stage i.e. Meeting of Shareholders and creditors.
[Future Coupons (P) Ltd. v. Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC., (2022) 6 SCC 121]
Is the Arbitration Tribunal empowered to award compound interest?
The 3-judge Bench comprising of N.V. Ramana, CJ., A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli*, JJ., held that Arbitral Tribunal is empowered to award interest on post award interest.
The instant appeal was filed by UHL Power Co. Ltd. against the order of the Himachal Pradesh High Court disallowing its pre-claim interest i.e., interest from the date when expenses were incurred, till the date of lodging the claim.
[UHL Power Co. Ltd. v. State of H.P., (2022) 4 SCC 116]
In a case where the Madhya Pradesh High Court had held that demand of money for construction of a house cannot be treated as a dowry demand, the 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, CJ and AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli*, JJ has found the said observation erroneous and has held that the word “Dowry” ought to be ascribed an expansive meaning so as to encompass any demand made on a woman, whether in respect of a property or a valuable security of any nature.
“Dowry must first consist of any property or valuable security— the word “any” is a word of width and would, therefore, include within it property and valuable security of any kind whatsoever.”
[State of M.P. v. Jogindra, (2022) 5 SCC 401]
In the petitions challenging the Constitutionality of Section
[S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India, (2022) 7 SCC 433]
Despite a slipshod investigation in a case, the 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Hima Kohli*, JJ has upheld the conviction of a man guilty of killing his wife within a few months of the marriage on her failing to satisfy the demands of dowry. The deceased Fulwa Devi had gone missing from her matrimonial home and her body was found on the bank of river Barakar after a week.
[Parvati Devi v. State of Bihar, (2022) 14 SCC 500]
High Court
Telangana High Court upholds Single Judge Bench order vis-à-vis opening of a new Mee-Seva Citizen Service Centre
In a case where the Collector had erred in granting permission to the respondent 7 to open a new Mee-Seva Citizen Service Center (CSC) at Bhimaram Village of Jaipur Mandal, Adilabad District, a division bench comprising of Hima Kohli,* C.J. and B. Vijaysen Reddy, J., upheld the Single Judge’s order that making another Mee-Seva center available in the area is not a decision taken without any application of mind and nor was there any political pressure for granting permission to open another Mee-Seva center.
[Mada Suryaprakash Reddy v. Prl. Secy., GAD, 2021 SCC OnLine TS 1738]
Telangana HC discusses the ambit of Section 18(4) of the MSME Act
A division bench comprising of Hima Kohli,* C.J. and B. Vijaysen Reddy, J., held that the respondent 1 does not fall within the ambit of Section 18(4) of the MSME Act and therefore, it cannot be treated as a “buyer located anywhere in India”, premised on a specious plea taken by the appellant that an individual was appointed by the respondent 1 as a Special Power of Attorney/Special Agent who happens to be a resident of New Delhi, India.
[Vaishno Enterprises v. Hamilton Medical AG, 2021 SCC OnLine TS 2470]
A Division Bench of Hima Kohli and Subramonium Prasad, JJ., while addressing the instant matter observed that, “while religious sentiments of all sections of the society must be respected, the right to life and health of the public at large cannot be sacrificed at the altar of a right to celebrate a festival, however, significant it may be for a particular community.”
“This is the time to scale down to contain the infection and not to escalate the same.”
[Shri Durga Jan Seva Trust v. GNCTD, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1456]
A Division Bench of Hima Kohli and Subramonium Prasad, JJ., while considering the question whether a bank/financial institution can institute or continue with proceedings against a guarantor under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), when proceedings under the
[Kiran Gupta v. State Bank of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1390]
A Division Bench of Hima Kohli and Subramonium Prasad, JJ., while observing a matrimonial application, observed that divorce petition filed by the respondent/wife read as a whole, does disclose a valid cause of action that can be entertained by the Family Court in India.
“The plaint must be read as a whole to determine as to whether it discloses a cause of action.”
[Karan Goel v. Kanika Goel, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1319]
A Division Bench of Hima Kohli and Subramonium Prasad, JJ., while addressing the matter with regard to domicile reservation policy for the candidates who have passed qualifying examination from Delhi appearing held that,
“It is well settled that when a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner only.”
[Balvinder Sangwan v. State (NCT) of Delhi, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 674]
A Division Bench of Hima Kohli and Asha Menon, JJ., while addressing a matrimonial appeal filed on behalf of the husband, held that,
“Adultery can only be committed after marriage, allegation of having relationship before marriage cannot be a ground of adultery.”
[Vishal Singh v. Priya, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 638]
The Division Bench of Hima Kohli and Subramonium Prasad, JJ. while dismissing a petition that challenged the MHA Notification of phased reopening of the country after nationwide lockdown, imposed a cost of Rs 20,000 due to wasting judicial time.
[Arjun Aggarwal v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 642 ]
A Division Bench of Hima Kohli and Subramonium Prasad, JJ., while dealing with the issue of non-provision of ration to e-coupon holders directed GNCTD to ensure that ration to be supplied to the said people by evening of 21-05-2020.
“Any non-compliance shall be viewed seriously.”
[Shabnam v. State (NCT) of Delhi, WP(C) No. 3205 of 2020, decided on 10-05-2020]
A Division Bench of Hima Kohli and Asha Menon, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed by the appellant-father against the judgment of the Family Court whereby his application under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 seeking custody of his minor son was rejected.
“The respondent’s remarriage can hardly be a ground for the appellant to claim that being the natural guardian of the child, he has a better right to claim his custody, over the respondent. At the end of the day, the court must examine the facts and circumstances of the case and then come to a conclusion as to whether it would be in the better interest of the minor child to remain in the custody of the father or the mother.”
[Faisal Khan v. Humera, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 572 ]
A Division Bench of Hima Kohli and Asha Menon, JJ., while addressing a matrimonial application stated that,
“Marriage is no doubt a sacrament, but it cannot be a one sided affair.”
Present appeal has been preferred against the Judgment of Family Court wherein the marriage between the appellant/respondent and respondent/petitioner was dissolved as the same was sought on grounds of cruelty and desertion within the meaning of Section 13(1)(i—a) and (i—b) of Hindu Marriage Act.
[Venkatesh Narasimhan v. V. Sujatha, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 571]
The Division Bench comprising of Hima Kohli and Rekha Palli, JJ., maintained the decision of a Single Judge in which it was decided “to award a Gold Medal to the respondent for his remarkable academic performance”, which was being denied by the appellant, i.e., Guru Gobin Singh Indraprastha University.
[Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University v. Abhinav Pandey, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 11915]
The Division Bench comprising of Rekha Palli and Hima Kohli, JJ., allowed an appeal and set aside the order passed by Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi concerning the cancelling of candidature for Civil Services Examination 2017 by UPSC.
“Error on the part of the petitioner could not be treated as a misrepresentation or suppression of facts.”
[Anuj Pratap Singh v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 10982]
Her Legacy
Justice Hima Kohli contributions extend beyond gender issues. She is an advocate for environmental awareness and the judiciary’s role in ecological preservation. She promotes mediation as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism and advises counsels to prioritize court appearances over seeking adjournments. Her approach to the law is both knowledgeable and eclectic, reflecting her commitment to legal development in various spheres.
Justice Kohli’s success can be attributed to her dedication, seniority, experience, diverse network, wide range of interests, and impactful public appearances. Her ability to know when to be progressive and when to uphold convention, has enabled her to achieve what many women in the legal profession aspire to. Justice Kohli’s legacy is one of progress, balanced by a keen sense of responsibility toward the evolving needs of society.
* Judge who has penned the judgment.
1. Judiciary must be allowed to interpret Constitution: SC judge Hima Kohli, The Economic Times
2. Hon’ble Ms. Justice Hima Kohli, Supreme Court of India.
3. Justice Hima Kohli: A Self-Made Woman in a Man’s World, Lex Insider
4. Supra.
5. HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI, High Court for the State of Telangana.
6. Justice Hima Kohli: A Self-Made Woman in a Man’s World, Lex Insider
7. Justice Hima Kohli, High Court of Delhi.
8. RISE OF THE FIRST FEMALE CHIEF JUSTICE IN THE NEW STATE, Indian Law Watch.
9. Justice Sanjib Banerjee, Justice Hima Kohli, Dr Justice S. Muralidhar appointed as Chief Justices of respective HCs, SCC Times.
10. HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI, High Court for the State of Telangana.
11. President appoints 9 Supreme Court Judges, including 3 women and former ASG, SCC Times.
12. RISE OF THE FIRST FEMALE CHIEF JUSTICE IN THE NEW STATE, Indian Law Watch.
13. Justice Hima Kohli, High Court of Delhi.
14. Supreme Court re-constitutes Gender Sensitisation and Internal complaints committee with Justice Hima Kohli as Chairperson, SCC Times.
15. HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI, High Court for the State of Telangana.
16. No Need Of Gender Neutral Law For Domestic Violence Yet: Justice Hima Kohli, She the people.
17. Robust mechanism to address gender-based misconduct in sports imperative: SC judge Hima Kohli, The Economic Times.
18. Justice Hima Kohli: A Self-Made Woman in a Man’s World, Lex Insider
19. HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI, High Court for the State of Telangana.
20. Justice Hima Kohli Advocates For Arbitration, Mediation To Resolve Disputes, BW Legal World.
21. Criminal Appeal No. 1659-1660 of 2024
