Early Life and Academics1
Justice Ritu Bahri was born on 11-10-1962 at Jalandhar, in a family of illustrious lawyers. Her father Justice Amrit Lal Bahri retired as Judge of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the year 1994. Her great grand-father Late Karam Chand Bahri was a well-known lawyer of his times on the civil side. Her grand-father Late Som Dutt Bahri also practiced law on the civil side and was also Member Legislative Assembly (MLA), Punjab, from 1952 to 1957.
Justice Ritu Bahri did her schooling from Carmel Convent School, Chandigarh, and graduation in Economics (Hons.) from Government College for Women, Chandigarh in the year 1982 in First Division. Thereafter, she did her Law from Punjab University, Chandigarh, in the year 1985 in First Division.
Career as an Advocate
Justice Bahri enrolled as an advocate in the year 1986 with Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana and started practice in Punjab & Haryana High Court. Her area of practice was civil, constitutional, taxation, labour and service matters. She specialized in service and tax matters2.
Justice Ritu Bahri was later appointed as Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, in March 1992. Thereafter, she was appointed as Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, in August 1999 and Senior Advocate General, Haryana, in December 2009.
While representing the State of Haryana, she handled several cases relating to Service matters, land Acquisition, Taxation, Revenue, Labour cases and MACT cases3.
Judgeship
After 24 years of practice, Justice Ritu Bahri was elevated as Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court on 16-08-2010. On 12-10-2023, Justice Bahri was appointed as Acting Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court with effect from 14-10-2023 consequent upon the retirement of Justice Ravi Shanker Jha4.
During her tenure of 13 years as a Judge of High Court, Justice Bahri authored 843 reported judgments of which 247 were delivered during last 5 years5.
On 02-11-2023 the Supreme Court Collegium comprising of Dr Justice DY Chandrachud, the Chief Justice of India, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sanjiv Khanna, recommended Justice Ritu Bahri’s name as new Chief Justice of Uttaranchal High Court. The Collegium toom note of her extensive experience in dispensing justice in one of the largest High Courts in the country, her competency and high level of integrity, conduct and character. While recommending the name of Justice Ritu Bahri the Collegium also considered that her elevation would enhance representation of women among the Chief Justices of the High Courts.
Accepting the Collegium’s recommendation, the Ministry of Law and Justice on 02-02-2024 notified the appointment of Justice Ritu Bahri. On 04-02-2024 Justice Bahri was formally sworn in as the 13th Chief Justice of Uttaranchal High Court.
Justice Ritu Bahri’s elevation also enhanced the representation of women among the Chief Justices of the High Courts to 2 Women Chief Justices. Justice Sunita Agarwal was appointed as Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court in 2023.
*Did you Know? Consequent upon her elevation in February 2024, Justice Ritu Bahri became the First Woman Chief Justice of Uttaranchal High Court6.
Notable Judgments
In a case wherein, petitioner was aggrieved by Resolution No. 20 passed on 15-05-2022 and Resolution No. 21 proposed on 27-11-2021 in the Bar Council of Uttarakhand, whereby the fixed fee for initiating disciplinary cases against the Advocates was increased from Rs 1750 to Rs 5500, the Division Bench of Ritu Bahri*, CJ., and Alok Kumar Verma, J., held that till the decision of Bar Council of India (‘BCI’) was pending on the Resolutions, the complaints against Advocates would be entertained only on the payment of fee of Rs 1750. [Satya Dev Tyagi v. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 SCC OnLine Utt 2845]
In the present case, a Criminal Reference and a Criminal Appeal had arisen from a common judgment and order dated 22-09-2021 and 24-09-2021, passed by the Special Judge (POCSO), Pithoragarh (‘the Trial Court’) by which respondent was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 376-AB of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), and Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’). The Division Bench of Ritu Bahri, CJ., and Alok Kumar Verma*, J., allowed the appeal partly by confirming conviction of respondent-the accused and holding that the present case, was not a fit case where extreme death sentence should be imposed and the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of death was commuted to rigorous imprisonment for a term of twenty years. [State of Uttarakhand v. Janak Bahadur, 2024 SCC Online Utt 1242]
“Cannot claim job regularisation under a time-bound scheme”: Uttaranchal High Court
The Division Bench of Ritu Bahri, CJ., and Rakesh Thapliyal, J*., while considering a petition seeking regularisation of the petitioner on the post of Sweeper (Safaiwala), dismissed the petition stating that petitioner/appellant was engaged under a Scheme sponsored by Government of India and as such, since the petitioner was engaged under a Scheme, which was for a period of 20 months under a Time Bound Project and therefore, petitioner/appellant cannot claim for regularization. [Juginder Prasad v. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 SCC OnLine Utt 2528]
Mere accusation in FIR lodged in a private dispute would not render an individual ineligible for doing his job: Uttaranchal HC
The Division Bench of Ritu Bahri, CJ*., and Rakesh Thapliyal, J, while hearing an appeal where the appellant was denied joining his duty as Home Guard on grounds of an FIR lodged by the appellant’s sister-in-law, held that, mere involvement and accusation in an FIR which has been lodged in a private dispute by the appellant’s brother’s wife would not render the appellant ineligible for doing his duty to the post on which he was working, as it does not involve moral turpitude and accusation in an FIR is a matter of trial. [Ramavtar Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 SCC OnLine Utt 2529]
When Uttaranchal HC dissolved a marriage considering 10-year long separation of the spouses
While hearing the instant appeal seeking to prevent dissolution of marriage, the Division Bench of Ritu Bahri, CJ*., and Rakesh Thapliyal, J., after taking into consideration long separation of 10 years between the parties, and the irretrievable breakdown of matrimonial bond, opined that non-grant of divorce to both the parties at this stage would amount to cruelty as both are educated persons and they should part their ways and go ahead in life.
Therefore, the marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce. To ensure that the parties may live peacefully in future, the respondent-husband was directed to pay an amount of rupees ten lakhs to the appellant-wife towards permanent alimony. [Rekha v. Ashish Luthara, 2024 SCC OnLine Utt 1832]
Stipend for Junior Lawyers | Punjab and Haryana High Court issues notice to BCI, BCPH
The Division Bench of Ritu Bahri, ACJ and Nidhi Gupta, J. has issued notice to Bar Council of India as well as Punjab and Haryana in a matter seeking payment of stipend/remuneration for young lawyers. The said notice was issued after a representation made before the Court on 18-01-2024 with the mention of the Kerala Government inaugurating a scheme under which, lawyers below the age of 30 years having less than 3 years of law practice and annual income of less than Rs 1 lakh to be eligible to receive stipend/remuneration of Rs 3000. [Vivek Tiwari v. Bar Council of India, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 136]
In an appeal filed by the appellant/husband seeking the dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion, and setting aside the impugned order of lower Court, whereby, his petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’), seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent has been dismissed; the division bench of Nidhi Gupta and Ritu Bahri, JJ. in order to do complete justice and to put an end to the agony of parties, set aside the impugned order of the lower Court, and dissolved the marriage solemnized between the parties by a decree of divorce. Further, it granted the wife permanent alimony of a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- as full and final settlement. [Ratandeep Singh Ahuja v. Harpreet Kaur]7
While deciding an appeal arising from a divorce petition, the bench of Ritu Bahri, J. and Meenakshi I. Mehta, J. observed that “the facts and circumstances unequivocally speak volumes of the fact that the respondent has incessantly been filing the complaints against the petitioner as well as his family members and the petitioner even had to go behind the bars in connection with one of those complaints, resulting in harm/damage to his image and reputation in the eyes of their relatives and the society at large” [Anmol Verma v. Radhika Sareen8]
In a matter with regard to mental cruelty, the Division Bench of Ritu Bahri and Ashok Kumar Verma, JJ., observed that, even if the husband and wife were staying together and the husband stopped talking to the wife, it would cause mental cruelty and a spouse staying away by sending vulgar and defamatory letters or notices by initiating a number of judicial proceedings could make the life of other spouse miserable. [Harbans v. Joginder Pal, 2022 SCC OnLine P&H 1101]
The Division Bench of Ritu Bahri and Arun Monga, JJ., held that marriage with minor is valid if no attempt is made to declare the same invalid once the child turns 18. The brief facts of the present case were that at the time of marriage in 2009, the respondent-wife was of the age 17 years, 6 months and 8 days. Both the parties continued to live together and cohabited as husband and wife till 31-08-2017 and a male child namely Manas was born out of the wedlock, who had been living with the appellant-husband since 2017. [Yogesh Kumar v. Priya]9
A writ petition was filed before a Single Judge Bench comprising of Ritu Bahri, J., where selection process for the post of Junior Coach (Athletics) was in question. Facts of the case were that the petitioner had applied in the selection process for the post of Junior Coach (Athletics) in response to an advertisement. When the final results for the post were out, petitioner’s name was found in the waiting list where he had applied for the post under the EBPG category. The EBPG category had 3 posts vacant where the selection of respondent had been challenged by the petitioner. The ground on which respondent’s selection was challenged was that he belonged to SBC (Special Backward Class) category thus could not have taken benefit under the category of EBPG by virtue of Clause 5 of the relevant notification which states that person claiming reservation under other categories are not entitled to reservation in the EBPG category. According to a certificate issued to respondent, it was found that he had taken benefit of EBPG category. [Sandeep v. State of Haryana, 2018 SCC OnLine P&H 1673]
1. Hon’ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri, Acting Chief Justice | District Court Bhiwani | India (dcourts.gov.in)
2. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (sci.gov.in)
3. Hon’ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri, Acting Chief Justice | District Court Bhiwani | India (dcourts.gov.in)
4. 202310121823829898.pdf (s3waas.gov.in)
5. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (sci.gov.in)
6. Uttarakhand High Court gets first woman Chief Justice as Ritu Bahri takes charge – India Today
7. First Appeal Order-Matrimonial-208 of 2013
8. [FAO No.6969 of 2019 (O&M)
9. FAO 855 of 2021