“So, I think, everyone must think for themselves about what is best. I mean there must be a mental goal-setting:
What do I want to do in life?
Where do I want to be in life?
How much of my time do I want to devote to getting there?”
– Justice Rajiv Shakdher1
Justice Rajiv Shakdher, with an illustrious academic and professional background, has carved a notable place for himself in the Indian judiciary. His expertise spans various branches of law, particularly focusing on commercial litigation, corporate law, and taxation. His appointment as the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court marked another chapter in his remarkable career. Retiring today (18-10-2024) after a brief tenure of 24 days, Justice Shakdher in his expansive career, has earned the reputation of being a forward- thinking advocate and Judge. Hence, it is only appropriate to celebrate his legacy by delving into his distinguished career, from bar to bench, spanning over37 years.
Early Life and Education2
Justice Rajiv Shakdher was born on 19-10-1962. He studied in St. Columba’s School, Delhi and graduated in B.Com. (Hons.) from Delhi University in 1984. He completed Chartered Accountancy from Institute of Chartered Accountants of India in 1987. He earned his Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) degree from the Law Faculty, University of Delhi, in 1987, the same year he cleared his Chartered Accountancy exams.
Did You Know? Justice Shakdher’s uncle Late S.L. Shakdher was the Chief Election Commissioner of India during the most crucial phase of our democracy between 1977 and 1982 i.e. immediately after lifting of the Emergency.3
Justice Shakdher was enrolled as an Advocate on 19-11-1987, embarking on a legal career that would encompass diverse fields of law. He was admitted as an Associate Member with the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India on 29-01-1988. His dual qualifications in law and accountancy offered him a strong foundation in the financial and corporate aspects of legal practice.
Did You Know? Law was not Justice Shakdher’s first choice. He could have continued with the chartered accountancy but since he liked the legal facets of accountancy, he took to law.4
In 1994, as a Chevening scholar, Justice Shakdher pursued an Advanced Course in Law at the prestigious Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, University of London. This international exposure further refined his legal acumen and widened his perspective on global legal trends.
Legal Practice and Experience5
Justice Shakdher’s professional journey, initially, involved approaching one law firm after another, but he later joined Harish Salve’s chamber, who at that time himself was not Senior Advocate, but as time passed, rose to prominence, becoming one of the best and most well-respected lawyers in the country.6
Justice Shakdher’s legal career began in earnest with his practice before various courts and tribunals in India. His areas of expertise included civil litigation, constitutional law, commercial litigation, corporate matters, and taxation law. He appeared before the Supreme Court of India, the Delhi High Court, other High Courts across the country, as well as specialized tribunals dealing with tax, insolvency, and corporate recovery.
His deep understanding of complex legal matters earned him recognition in the legal community, leading to his designation as a Senior Advocate on 08-12-2005. This marked a significant milestone in his career, reflecting his expertise and stature in the legal profession.
Judicial Career
Justice Rajiv Shakdher was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Delhi High Court on 11-04-2008, and later confirmed as a Permanent Judge on 17-10-2011.7 In April 2016, Justice Shakdher was transferred to the Madras High Court, where he served until January 2018.8 He was later transferred to Delhi High Court from Madras High Court and was directed to assume charge of his office in the Delhi High Court on or before 16-01-2018.9
Did You Know? Justice Rajiv Shakdher is the 2nd Judge, whose first transfer from the Delhi High Court was to the Chartered High Court of Madras , the first being Justice Ismail.10
Justice Rajiv Shakdher’s elevation to High Court of Himachal Pradesh was recommended by the Collegium on 11-07-2024 and his appointment was finally confirmed by the Law Ministry on 21-09-2024. On 25-09-2024, Justice Rajiv Shakdher was elevated to the position of Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh.11 This prestigious appointment is a testament to his legal acumen, vast experience, and dedication to upholding the rule of law.
His tenure at the Delhi High Court was marked by his judicious handling of cases involving intricate legal questions, particularly in commercial and corporate law. During his tenure in Madras High Court, he chaired several important committees, including the Information and Technology Committees. He also chaired the same position in Delhi High Court. His legal expertise extended beyond judicial proceedings to administrative roles within the judiciary. His leadership in implementing technology reforms reflected his forward-thinking approach, ensuring greater efficiency and transparency in court processes.
Did You Know? Information Technology Committee, High Court of Delhi headed by Justice Rajiv Shakdher virtually launched its much anticipated and revolutionary Information Technology Projects i.e. ‘Digital Courts for Contested Traffic Challans’, and ‘Bail Orders Sharing Module on e-Prison platform.12
Justice Shakdher’s Insights
Justice Rajiv Shakdher is known among the legal fraternity for his keen insights. While speaking at the book release of “OBSCENITY: Prevention, Law & Practice” by Saurabh Bindal, said that “in India test of community standards is prevailing. The social views of judges play an important role when deciding cases relating to obscenity. The difficulty the judges face is how to apply the tests to certain facts”. He further added that “vulgar is not always the test for obscene. Everything that is vulgar is not always obscene”.13
During his interview with SCC Times about “Mental Health Awareness”, Justice Rajiv Shakdher on “what might be the causes of mental illness in the legal fraternity” said that the causes of career stagnation and dissatisfaction often veer around three key issues, lack of opportunity, employability, and, eventually, the lack of avenues for growth. He highlighted on the lack of adequate support systems and stressed on the need for trained counsellors, psychiatrists, and psychologists readily available to provide assistance. Justice Shakdher underscored the importance of institutions offering accessible counselling services to address the challenges faced by individuals in the legal field. He said that “I think the more discussion you have about this issue in different forums, the less stigma will be attached to someone suffering from mental health issues. There needs to be more data collation and analysis about the numbers involved and sharing of best practices as far corrective measures are concerned, to address mental health issues more robustly.”14
While speaking at the launch of Court Design Handbook: Design Guide for User-Centric District Courts in India, in an event organised by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, Justice Rajiv Shakdher called on legal fraternity to create work opportunities for persons with disabilities and said “Differently-abled lawyers are as good if not better than able lawyers”.15
Justice Rajiv Shakdher emphasised how judges can unshackle the entrenched system of social biases. He also left a message for the less privileged, adding that judges have to net the ball as people watch them silently and evaluate them. He said, “To the unentitled, you may be unconnected, uninitiated and untrained but if you have fire in your belly, you can unshackle the entrenched system biases of caste, creed and economics. You have to learn to march to the tune of your own drummer. The trouble only is when there are two drummers sitting on the bench, then we need a symphony,”16
While inaugurating Vidhi Utsav — India’s First Festival of Law and Legal Literature, Justice Rajiv Shakdher delivered an inspirational and insightful keynote address expressing his fascination with an event that amalgamates law and literature, an intriguing intersection with thought provoking examples from western and Indian literature. He said, “Much of the art of advocacy is literature. Judges and lawyers have taken recourse to literature to explain legal complexities… Law has to be seasoned with justice and mercy. If they do not meet there will not be a satisfactory answer.”17
While speaking at the AI Conference organised by the Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF), Justice Shakdher shared his thoughts on artificial intelligence (AI) and the opportunities and challenges it poses. He said “Technology needs to be dominated by human beings because if you don’t do it, you would actually make something which is not in control of human beings … We should look at technology with caution and not give up on it.”18
However, it has not always law and order on his mind, as Justice Rajiv Shakdher has also often displayed a keen sense of humour, which has been immortalized by Delhi High Court’s latest feature Humour in Court that features the “Story of an Asterix”, narrating a lighthearted banter between a Senior Judge and a Senior Advocate.
Notable Judgments
In Monika Sharma v. Union of India,19 a writ petition challenging two communications, dated 24-11-2023 and 16-02-2024, issued by the Himachal Pradesh government regarding the implementation of the National Education Policy, 2020 (NEP 2020), which introduced a mandatory age limit of six years for admission to Class 1, effective from the 2024-25 academic year, a Division bench of Rajiv Shakdher, CJ. and Satyen Vaidya, J., held that the implementation of the NEP 2020 in Himachal Pradesh, specifically the imposition of the age criterion for Class 1, was arbitrary and inequitable. The Court directed to reconsider the immediate implementation of NEP 2020’s age requirements and extend the relaxation period until proper infrastructure and ECCE-trained teachers are in place.
In State of H.P. v. Uma Tanwar,20 an appeal while deciding whether the appellants has the right to take possession of a portion of the land belonging to the respondent (the original writ petitioner) for constructing the Shimla-Mandi via Tattapani road without initiating any land acquisition proceedings, a Division bench of Rajiv Shakdher,* CJ. and Satyen Vaidya, J., while relying on precedents where the Supreme Court upheld the rights of landowners to receive reasonable compensation for property acquisition and reiterated that no person can be deprived of property except by lawful authority, per Article 300-A of the Constitution, uphled single-judge order that the appellants acted unlawfully in taking possession of the land without acquisition proceedings.
In R.K. Co. v. State of H.P., 2024 SCC OnLine HP 5061, a petition challenging respondent 3’s decision of cancellation/withdrawal of the work order dated 27.08.2024, for supplying manpower services, a Division bench of Rajiv Shakdher,* CJ. and Satyen Vaidya, J., held that the petitioner had not been awarded the contract as the letter from Respondent 1 on 23-08-2024 did not grant specific approval for awarding the contract to the petitioner but merely directed hiring personnel under the terms of the existing tender and codal formalities. The Court found no error in Respondent 3’s decision to withdraw the earlier communication and dismissed the writ petition.
In Sanjay Mandyal v. Gopal Singh Kanwar, 2024 SCC OnLine HP 5124, an appeal challenging the Single-judge order dated 28-03-2024, where the court quashed the recovery action and ordered the recoveries already made to be refunded, a Division bench of Rajiv Shakdher, CJ. and Satyen Vaidya, J., upheld the Single Judge’s judgment and protected the employees from recovery of the graduation increment benefits granted lawfully in 1997.
In Designarch Consultants (P) Ltd. v. Jumeriah Beach Resort LLC, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6696, cross appeals filed against the impugned judgment dated 09-11-2021 passed by a Single Judge wherein the application filed by Jumeirah Beach resort LLC (‘Jumeirah’) under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’) was decided, a Division Bench of Rajiv Shakdher and Amit Bansal, JJ. allowed Designarch Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (‘Designarch’) and Jumeirah to settle while accepting the terms of settlement agreed by both the parties.
In X v. Y, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5078, an appeal filed by the wife against order of the Family Court dismissing her application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) for dismissal of the divorce petition filed by the husband, the Division Bench of Rajiv Shakdher* and Amit Bansal, JJ., dismissed the appeal and stated that a petition could not be rejected in a piecemeal manner upon an application being moved under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The Court said the Family Court judge was correct in holding that divorce petition could not be rejected merely because a part of the cause of action was not viable in law if the Court otherwise had jurisdiction to entertain the action, and therefore, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 was not sustainable.
In Amit Sharma v. Sugandha Sharma, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4655, an appeal filed by the appellant (father) to seek a direction for setting aside the impugned order dated 09-11-2023 passed by the Family Court, Dwarka, New Delhi as well as the interim custody of his child, a Division Bench of Rajiv Shakdher and Amit Bansal,* JJ. did not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order and refused to grant interim custody of the child to the father.
“…in matters of custody of a minor child, the Court has to look into the best interest of the child. The best interest of the child has to be determined taking into account all relevant circumstances. It cannot also be disputed that a minor child requires the love and affection of both his parents. Therefore, even if the custody of the child is with one parent, the other parent must have visitation rights so as to ensure that the child maintains contact with the other parent. Joint parenting is the norm. If the court moves away from this norm, it should clearly articulate its reasons. One of the facets of joint parenting is the grant of visitation rights. At times, the courts need inputs from domain experts. The timing, duration and whether oversight of say a child counsellor is required during visitation by a non-custodial parent, is a call that the court has to take bearing in mind the best interest of the child.”
In Tripurari Kumar Jha v. DU, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4220, an appeal was filed by the appellant, who was shortlisted for the three-year LLB course in Law Centre II, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi as part of the 2022-2025 batch to consider whether he, who was detained by the Delhi University (respondents No. 1 and 2) from sitting for the first term LLB examination due to shortage of attendance, should be required to seek readmission, given the fact that the deficiency in attendance was attributable to the appellant being afflicted with disease. A Division Bench of Amit Bansal and Rajiv Shakdher,* JJ., directed the respondent to re-admit the appellant with the batch of 2024-2027 students stating that even though the BCI has advised institutional empathy, the University, for some reason, refuses to acknowledge that it is conferred with power to allow students to continue with their education, interrupted due to genuine medical ailments and other difficult circumstances that may be beyond their control.
In Nirmaan Malhotra v. Tushita Kaul, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4326, An appeal was filed challenging the judgment and order dated 15-04-2024, whereby the application filed by the respondent/wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was disposed of and appellant/husband was directed to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 75,000 to the respondent/wife, effective from the date of the application, with an annual increase of 7% starting from 01-04-2025. A division bench of Rajiv Shakdher* and Amit Bansal, JJ., dismissed the appeal being devoid of merits.
“We may take judicial notice of the fact that we are living in the era of deepfakes and, therefore, this is an aspect that the appellant/husband, perhaps, would have to prove by way of evidence before the Family Court.”
In Lalit Sharma v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4152, a batch of petitions filed by the applicant seeking modification/clarification of Paragraph 35(11.17)(iv) of the judgment dated 19-03-2024 passed by this Court for treating law researchers as bona fide advocates and allowing them to cast their vote in the elections of the Bar Associations of which they are members of, a 3-Judge Bench comprising of Manmohan, ACJ, Rajiv Shakdher, and Suresh Kumar Kait, JJ., allowed the application and dispensed the timeline stipulated for capturing biometrics for the issuance of identity cards.
In Delhi Building and other Construction Workers Welfare Board v. Dulari Devi, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3148, appeal was filed against a judgment dated 23-2-2023 (‘impugned judgment’) passed by a Single Judge in Dulari Devi v. Delhi Building and other Construction Workers Welfare Board, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1006 (‘Dulari Devi Case’), whereby the Single Judge had allowed the application submitted by Respondent 1’s husband for releasing his pension, which had earlier been rejected by appellant vide order dated 23-8-2022. The Division Bench of Rajiv Shakdher* and Amit Bansal, JJ., dismissed the appeal and held that there was no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the Single Judge. The Court opined that the per mensem rate of pension, which was Rs 3000, was minuscule, given the cost of living in a city like Delhi. Thus, appellant, if deemed necessary, might have to find resources, including increasing the rate of levy of cess, to shore up funds to extend benefits to building workers.
In Akhilesh Kumar Gupta v. Gupta Snizhana Grygorivna, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1877, an appeal filed seeking to set aside the judgment dated 23-11-2023 passed by Family Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (‘Family Court’), whereby the guardianship petition filed on behalf of appellant-father seeking custody of his son was dismissed. The Division Bench of Rajiv Shakdher and Amit Bansal*, JJ., even on merits, it would not be in the minor child’s best interest, who was currently five years old to be separated from his mother and his elder sister who were living in Ukraine. The Court also observed that the Family Court while passing the impugned judgment had interacted with the minor son on 17-11-2023, who had expressed his desire to go back to Ukraine with his mother and stated that he did not wish to speak to father and his family members.
“… the usual place of residence of the child is Vinnytsia, Ukraine. The child, as noted hereinabove, seeks to remain in the company of the respondent/mother. The respondent/mother and the child, who are citizens of Ukraine, wish to return to their country. The appellant has been given rights of visitation by the concerned Ukrainian authorities.”
In Lalit Sharma v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1901, the issues that arose for consideration in the present case were (a) whether elections to the Executive Committees of different Bar Associations in Delhi should be held simultaneously; (b) whether the terms/tenures of such Executive Committees should be for a uniform period; (c) whether Identity/Proximity Cards and Radio Frequency Identification Tag/Stickers (‘RFID’) should be mandatorily issued to all lawyers and if so by whom; and (d) to ensure purity in elections, should this Court prohibit hosting of election parties, printing of posters and erection of hoardings. The 3-Judges Bench of Manmohan, ACJ.*, and Rajiv Shakdher and Suresh Kumar Kait, JJ., directed that elections to the Executive Committees of different Bar Associations in Delhi should be held on the same day and the term/tenure of all such Executive Committees should be for a uniform period of two years. Further, the Court prohibited hosting of election parties, printing of posters and erection of hoardings.
In Vikas Pahwa v. Pankaj Oswal, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1193, a defamation suit was filed aggrieved by the alleged defamatory statements made by the respondent seeking various reliefs, including a declaration of defamation, injunctions against further defamatory statements, and a mandatory apology from the respondent, a division bench of Rajiv Shakdher* and Amit Bansal, JJ., held that the plaint was rightly rejected by the Single Judge since the cause of action for instituting the suit was founded on the alleged defamatory statement, because of the protection offered to the respondent by the doctrine of absolute privilege, the Court cannot entertain such cause.
In Union of India v. Kolli Uday Kumari, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 264, an appeal filed against the judgment dated 10-08-2021 rendered by the Single Judge while dealing with a challenge against the communication dated 12-02-2020 issued by Union of India rejected the request for grant of pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 based on the reason that a “widowed/divorced daughter” was not eligible for pension under the 1980 Scheme, a Division Bench of Rajiv Shakdher* and Talwant Singh, JJ., upheld the impugned order wherein the Single Judge found the issue to be no longer res integra in view of the judgement delivered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Khajani Devi v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine P&H 15867, wherein the Court saw no good reason to differentiate between an “unmarried” daughter, who, admittedly, is an eligible beneficiary under the 1980 Scheme and a “divorced daughter”.
In CIT (International Taxation) v. Bio-Rad Laboratories (Singapore) Pte Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6770, a case wherein, the appeal was filed to challenge the order dated 30-12-2022, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’), the Division Bench of Rajiv Shakdher and Girish Kathpalia, JJ., agreed with the analysis and conclusion arrived by the Tribunal, that the services offered by the respondent to its Indian affiliates did not come within the purview of the Fees for Technical Services (‘FTS’), as reflected in Article 12(4)(b) of the India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘India-Singapore DTAA’) and concluded that they did not fulfil the criteria of ‘make available’ principle.
In Clix Capital Services (P) Ltd. v. CIT, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1821, a petition filed by Clix Capital Services Private Limited (petitioner) challenging the order passed by the Revenue Department (respondent) disposing of the petitioner’s representation for initiation of the penalty imposed under Section 271-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a division bench of Rajiv Shakdher and Tara Vitasta Ganju, JJ., set aside the delayed show cause notice issued under the provision of Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) for the delay being ‘unreasonable’ and ‘unexplained’.
In Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Krati Mehrotra, (2022) 2 HCC (Del) 566, a claim of maternity benefit by a contractual employee, the Division Bench of Rajiv Shakdher* and Talwant Singh, JJ., expressed that, the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 is a social legislation that should be worked in a manner that progresses not only the best interest of the women-employee but also of the child, both at the pre-natal and post-natal stage. While upholding the decision of the Tribunal, Court remarked that, without financial wherewithal, the interest of women-employee and her child is likely to be severely impacted.
In Vallabh Textiles v. Senior Intelligent Officer, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4508, a case filed questioning whether the cumulative sum of Rs. 1,80,10,000/- deposited on behalf of the petitioner concern, during search proceedings carried out between 16-02-2022 and 17.02.2022, was a voluntary act or not, on allegations that certain entities were sold by the petitioner company in form of cash and even the commission was received in cash, which was not disclosed, and tax has been evaded, a Division Bench of Rajiv Shakdher and Tara Vitasta Ganju, JJ., held that tax, interest and penalty collected by Revenue during the investigation, without following due procedure, is involuntary and directed the official respondents/revenue to return Rs. 1,80,10,000/- to the petitioner-concern, along with interest at the rate of 6% (simple) per annum.
In RIT Foundation v. Union of India, (2022) 3 HCC (Del) 572, a split verdict the Division Bench of Rajiv Shakdher* and C. Hari Shankar, JJ., laid down their opinion on “Should a husband be held criminally liable for raping his wife who is not under 18 years of age?”, and held that
(i) the petitioners’ case is premised on a fundamentally erroneous postulate, for which there is no support available, either statutory or precedential, that every act of non-consensual sex by any man with any woman is rape,
(ii) the impugned Exception does not violate Article 14, but is based on an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object both of the impugned Exception as well as Section 375 itself,
(iii) the impugned Exception does not violate Article 19(1)(a),
(iv) the impugned Exception does not violate Article 21,
(v) none of the indicia, on which a statutory provision may be struck down as unconstitutional, therefore, can be said to exist, and
(vi) in such circumstances, the Court cannot substitute its subjective value judgement for the view of the democratically elected legislature, hence challenges laid by the petitioners to the constitutional validity of Exception 2 to Section 375 and Section 376B of the IPC, and Section 198B of the Cr PC, must fail.
“Women in most parts of the world are treated as individuals, free to enter into contracts in their own right but when it comes to sexual communion with their husbands, their consent counts for nothing.”
In MTNL v. Deputy Labour Commissioner, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3704, a petition filed challenging the vires of Rule 14 of Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Rules, 1998 (Rules, 1998), a Division Bench of Rajiv Shakdher* and Tara Vitasta Ganju, JJ., held that that Rule 14(2)(b) of 1998 Rules is clearly beyond the powers of rule-making authority and must be struck down.
In Aman Vachar v. Union of India,21 The Division Bench of Rajiv Shakdher and Jasmeet Singh, JJ., strikes down the OM dated 13-7-2021, to the extent it requires Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court to seek political clearance qua private visits abroad.
In Sandeep Bhalla v. RBI, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 671, a single-judge bench of Rajiv Shakdher, J., directed the Union of India and RBI to submit affidavits stating what propelled RBI to take action in public interest to secure interest of depositors of Yes Bank and how are depositors of PMC Bank different circumstanced from depositors of Yes Bank.
In Lakshmi Bhavya Tanneeru v. Union of India, (2021) 4 HCC (Del) 1, while addressing a grievance with regard to the denial of inter-cadre transfer, a Division Bench of Rajiv Shakdher and Talwant Singh, JJ., held that, denial with no cogent reasons impinges upon such person’s right to demand respect for her/his family life.
“…refusal of the request made for inter-cadre transfer by an officer on the ground of marriage can only be sustained if it is backed by cogent reasons—as such a decision is subject to judicial review.”
In North Delhi Municipal Corpn. v. Bal Kishan, (2021) 3 HCC (Del) 794, while deciding a matter with regard to payment of full wages to workman, the Division Bench of Rajiv Shakdher* and Talwant Singh, JJ., held the workman was entitled to full wages last drawn by him and since respondent 1 had been ordered to be regularized with all consequential benefits, the Management, i.e., NDMC shall pay his full last drawn wages or minimum wages, which ever higher from 18-2-2020 onwards and keep on paying during the pendency of the present appeal.
In Kuppammal v. Govt. of T.N., 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 28, an application filed by the petitioner, a 77-year-old widow and mother of two detenus, seeking a one-month parole for her sons, who are life convicts currently incarcerated at Central Prison, Vellore, a division bench ofRajiv Shakdher and N. Sathish Kumar, JJ., grant emergency leave to the detenus for six days. The Court instructed the respondents to adhere to the usual protocols for granting leave.
In Pankaj Butalia v. Central Board of Film Certification, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 9694, while dealing with the issue of violation of fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression by banning a film made by the petitioner ‘The Texture of the Loss’, a single-judge bench of Rajiv Shakdher, J., held that while imposing censorship it must be taken into account that it is permissible to maintain values and standards of society. The objectionable part should be seen from the point of view of a reasonable, strong minded, firm and courageous man. Denying the accusation put by Gaurav Sarin, the advocate for the respondent, that the film resulted in the crime of sedition and put down the charge by explaining the provisions of Section 124-A of the IPC, the Court stated that the Film Certificate Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) has completely misguided itself by not appreciating the context in which the statement under controversy, was made in the film.
In Priya Parameshwaran Pillai v. Union of India, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 7987, while quashing the “Look out circular” (LOC) issued against the petitioner, a civil right activists who works for “Greenpeace India Society”, who was detained at Delhi Airport and was stopped from going UK to meet British Parliamentarians to discuss about violations of the rights of tribal communities and the role of British Company “Essar energy” in it, the single bench headed by Rajiv Shakdher, J., held that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right and it flows directly from Article 21 of the Constitution of India which can be taken away only by procedure established in law. Enforcing petitioner’s right of free speech and expression which includes the right to criticize and dissent, the Court further held that detaining the petitioner at the airport to prevent her from expressing her view, will also be violative of Article 19 (1)(a).
In National Highway Authority of India v. Oriental Structure Engineers Ltd., 2012 SCC OnLine Del 4787, while considering the question whether the Court, while entertaining a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, could issue notice only for some or one of the grounds taken, a 3-judges bench of A.K. Sikri, ACJ., Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Rajiv Shakdher,* JJ., held that a proceeding under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not limit the Court’s power to issue notice on limited grounds.
In Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd. v. Parul Food Specialties (P) Ltd., 2011 SCC OnLine Del 288, a single-judge bench of Rajiv Shakdher,* J., refused to entertain a suit for alleged infringement of trademark, involving a submission that copyright may be claimed over the name and pictorial depiction of Lord Krishna. The Court stated that in our country’s cultural context, the name ‘Krishna’ was as common as the name ‘John’ in the west, and refused to entertain the plaintiff’s submission that they had exclusive rights over the name and pictoral depiction of Lord Krishna.
In Phaguni Nilesh Lal v. Supreme Court of India, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 5070, a single-judge bench of Rajiv Shakdher, J*., struck down the policy of the Supreme Court in selecting Law Clerk-cum-Research Assistant and held that to the extent the present scheme/policy confines the source of candidates, for engagement as clerks, to the empanelled Law Colleges and Universities, it is illegal.
His Legacy
Justice Rajiv Shakdher’s journey is one of significant academic accomplishments and a wide-ranging legal practice, culminating in his elevation as the Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. Throughout his career, Justice Shakdher has been celebrated for his analytical rigor, balanced judgments, and a keen understanding of the evolving legal landscape, particularly in the context of commercial and technology-related disputes. His expertise in corporate and taxation law, coupled with his command over constitutional principles, will ensure that he remains an influential figure in Indian jurisprudence. His career reflects a blend of legal scholarship and extensive judicial experience and will mark as an inspiration for young minds.
* Judge who has penned the judgment.
1. [Episode 2] “the more discussion you have about mental health issue in different forums, the less stigma will be attached to someone suffering from mental health issues” says Justice Rajiv Shakdher, SCC Times.
2. Justice Rajiv Shakdher, High Court of Delhi.
3. Welcome Address to the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Huluvadi G. Ramesh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Shakdher – on 11-04-2016, (2016) 2 LW (JS) 17.
4. [Episode 2] “the more discussion you have about mental health issue in different forums, the less stigma will be attached to someone suffering from mental health issues” says Justice Rajiv Shakdher, SCC Times.
5. Chief Justice & Sittting Judges, High Court of Himachal Pradesh.
6. [Episode 2] “the more discussion you have about mental health issue in different forums, the less stigma will be attached to someone suffering from mental health issues” says Justice Rajiv Shakdher, SCC Times.
7. Justice Rajiv Shakdher, High Court of Delhi.
8. Chief Justice & Sittting Judges, High Court of Himachal Pradesh.
9. Justice Rajiv Shakdher transferred to Delhi High Court, SCC Times.
10. Welcome Address to the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Huluvadi G. Ramesh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Shakdher – on 11-04-2016, (2016) 2 LW (JS) 17.
11. Justice Rajiv Shakdher takes oath as 29th Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court, SCC Times.
12. CJI inaugurates Digital Courts for Contested Traffic Challans and Bail Orders Sharing Module on e-Prison platform, SCC Times.
13. “Everything that is vulgar is not always obscene”: Justice Rajiv Shakdher at the book release of “OBSCENITY: Prevention, Law & Practice” by Saurabh Bindal, SCC Times.
14. [Episode 2] “the more discussion you have about mental health issue in different forums, the less stigma will be attached to someone suffering from mental health issues” says Justice Rajiv Shakdher, SCC Times.
15. Differently-abled lawyers are as good if not better than able lawyers: Justice Rajiv Shakdher, Bar and Bench.
16. ‘If you have fire in your belly, can unshackle entrenched biases’: Justice Rajiv Shakdher, The Indian Express.
17. Over 85 Speakers, 30 sessions and more than 800 attendees at India’s first Festival of Law and Legal Literature held in New Delhi, SCC Times.
18. Technology offers ample opportunities, embrace it with caution: Jusyice Rajiv Shakdher, ET Government.
19. CWPIL No. 35 of 2024 a/w CWPs No. 2872, 3441, 4739, 6052 and 6053 of 2024, order dated 16-10-2024.
20. LPA No. 328 of 2024, order dated 15-10-2024.
21. WP (C) No. 2712 of 1991, order dated 01-04-2022.