Know Thy Judge | Justice Suresh Kumar Kait — 28th Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court

Born on 24-05-1963, in the serene village of Kakaut, District Kaithal, Haryana,¹ Justice Suresh Kumar Kait’s rise from modest beginnings to holding the esteemed position of Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court is an inspiring testament to his dedication, intellect, and unwavering commitment to justice.

Early Life and Education²

Justice Kait’s academic journey began in the field of Humanities at University College Kurukshetra. His leadership qualities emerged early; during his graduation, he served as the Unit Leader for the National Service Scheme (NSS), earning a University Merit Certificate for his contributions.

He further pursued his academic aspirations with a post-graduate degree in Political Science from Kurukshetra University. Here, also he showcased his leadership potential by being elected Joint Secretary of the Students’ Union, marking his active engagement in student welfare and university activities. Justice Kait then completed his Bachelor’s Degree in Law from Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi.

Legal Practice ³

In 1989, Justice Kait was enrolled as an Advocate, becoming the first in his family to embrace the legal profession — a pioneering step that set the stage for a remarkable career. His practice as an Advocate was marked by diversity and distinction. He represented prestigious institutions such as the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and the Indian Railways, serving as their Panel Lawyer and later as Senior Counsel. His expertise and reputation led to his appointment as Standing Counsel for the Central Government in 2004, a position he held with distinction until his elevation to the Bench.

Judicial Career

Justice Kait’s judicial journey commenced with his elevation as an Additional Judge of the Delhi High Court on 05-09-2008. His acumen and fair-minded judgments earned him the position of Permanent Judge at the Delhi High Court on 12-04-2013.⁴

In 2016, he was transferred to the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, where he contributed significantly.⁵ After serving with distinction, Justice Kait returned to the Delhi High Court on 12-10-2018.⁶

On 21-09-2024, Justice Kait was appointed Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.⁷ Governor Mangubhai Patel administered the oath to Justice Suresh Kumar Kait as the 28th Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 25-09-2024.⁸

Notable Judgements by Justice Kait

In Vijay Bajaj v. Union of India, WP No. 30572 of 2024, a writ petition seeking to regulate the misuse of live-streamed court proceedings on social media platforms and ensure compliance with the Madhya Pradesh Live-Streaming and Recording Rules for Court Proceedings, 2021 (the Rules), a Division bench of Suresh Kumar Kait, CJ., and Vivek Jain, J., restrained respondents 5 to 7, along with all social media platforms and the general public, from editing or sharing live-streamed videos in any manner that violates Rule 11(b) of the Rules and also directed the removal of all unauthorized content currently uploaded on social media.

In Virendra Ajmani v. Nagar Palika Parishad Bina, 2024 SCC OnLine MP 6536, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the order dated 07-09-2024, issued by the Chief Municipal Officer, Bina, which imposed a temporary ban on the sale of meat, fish, eggs, and related products during the celebration of Ganesh Mahotsav, a division bench of Suresh Kumar Kait, CJ., Vivek Jain, J., issued notices to the respondents, with time granted for filing counter-affidavits.

In Nitin Singhvi v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine MP 6535, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking a direction to the respondent/authorities to release the captured elephants and to rehabilitate them in the wild with the aid and assistance of experts, a division bench of Suresh Kumar Kait, CJ., and Vivek Jain, J., directed the respondent authorities to make a conclusive decision on the rehabilitation of the elephants and provide a detailed status report on their conditions and captivity by the next hearing.

In Punjab and Sindh Bank v. Raj Kumar, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6431, an appeal filed by Punjab and Sindh Bank (appellants) seeking to stay the operation of the judgment dated 03-02-2023 passed by the Single Judge wherein the punishment of dismissal was converted into compulsory retirement as there was differential treatment because the respondent was awarded the extreme punishment of dismissal while the other two had been let off with lesser punishment. A division bench of Suresh Kumar Kait and Girish Kathpalia, JJ., held that the Single Judge has rightly found merit in the grievance ventilated by the respondent that he had not received fair treatment at the hands of the appellant Bank and while co- delinquents been given lesser punishments, he had been awarded the harshest punishment in service jurisprudence.

In Ravi Kumar v. Department of Space, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6676, a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking a direction to set aside and quash the order dated 25-07-2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi (the ‘Tribunal’), the Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait* and Girish Kathpalia, JJ., noted the petitioner’s contention that that the marks assigned for qualifying the interview should not have been more than 15%, and stated that the petitioner did not challenge the criteria laid down for qualifying the examination, prior to entering into the selection process. The Court stated that the fact remained that the petitioner participated in the selection process, but, after he failed to make his place in the recruitment, he had challenged the selection process.

In Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board v. Vishnu Kumar Badetiya, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6371, a petition filed by the Delhi Subordinate Selection Service Board (‘DSSSB’) under Section 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash and set aside the order dated 27-04-2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘CAT’), Principal Bench, New Delhi whereby a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Castes (‘SC’) category was held to be entitled to appointment as a Staff Nurse despite holding a Caste Certificate which had not been issued by State of Delhi, a Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait and Girish Kathpalia, JJ. upheld the impugned order and directed DSSSB to comply with the directions mentioned in the said order within four weeks.

“NCT of Delhi is giving reservation to one category and denying the same to another, which is sheer discrimination and cannot be permitted.”

In Union of India v. Gurjinder Pal Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5881, a petition filed to challenge the order dated 30-04-2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘CAT’) wherein the order dated 20-07-2023 passed by the President to compulsorily retire Gurjinder Pal Singh (respondent 1) under Rule 16(3) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 (‘Rules’) had been set aside, a Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait* and Girish Kathpalia, JJ. opined that the Union had not been able to show anything adverse in the service record of Gurjinder Pal Singh and upheld the impugned order dated 30-04-2024.

In Jamia Millia Islamia v. Shakeel Ahmad, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4847, a present appeal was preferred by the appellant-Jamia Millia Islamia, challenging the judgement dated 10-07-2023 passed by the Single Judge of this Court, whereby the office order dated 04-09-2018 passed by the appellant was quashed. A direction was also issued to the appellant to reinstate the respondent in service, thereby permitting to take his reinstatement at the age of 65 years, with 50% back wages for the period commencing 31-12-2019 till re-instatement, with other consequential benefits. The Division Judge Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait* and Girish Kathpalia, JJ., while dismissing the present appeal, held that the appellant had to comply with the directions given by the Single Judge of this 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 Masasasong AO v. NIA, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3581, a bail application by the appellant who was accused of being a member of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Isak-Muviah) (‘NSCN-IM’), and of extorting money for terrorist activities, the Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait and Manoj Jain, JJ. dismissed the application while stating that being a government employee, the appellant cannot be allowed to run from the clutches of law.

In State v. PDD, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3483, a criminal application filed by the State after being aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court wherein an accused-father who had been sexually assaulting his daughter repeatedly for two years was acquitted, a Division Bench comprising Suresh Kumar Kait and Manoj Jain*, JJ. reversed the decision while holding that the evidence had been misread and misinterpreted by the Trial Court.

“Victim must have thought that she would find a ‘monastery’ in the lap of her father. Little did she realize that he was rather a ‘monster’.”

In Avneshwar Singh v. Monika, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2335, an appeal filed appellant-husband under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’) against the impugned judgment and decree dated 18-12-2021 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Courts, Southwest District, Dwarka, New Delhi (‘the Family Court’). The Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait* and Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ., opined that respondent-wife’s admission to sending a message containing derogatory language towards appellant’s father and filing of complaints with his employer, could be considered as cruelty as such incidents create an atmosphere of tension and instability within the marital relationship, causing emotional harm to both parties involved. The Court set aside the judgment dated 18-12-2021 passed by the Family Court to the effect it dismissed the petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA filed by appellant. The Court thus allowed the appeal and granted divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA, to appellant.

In Paras Narsi v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1026, a case wherein a Writ of Habeas Corpus was filed by a Portuguese national of Indian origin who was illegally restrained and detained at Delhi Airport, the Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait* and Neena Bansal Krishna,* JJ. opined that the Air India Officials had no business to stop the petitioner at the Delhi Airport and therefore, the Court directed the respondents to arrange a flight for Ahmedabad for the petitioner at their own cost and to allow the petitioner to Ahmedabad with all his belongings and documents.

In ABC v. XYZ,⁹ a Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait* and Neena Bansal Krishna,* JJ., opined that where both the spouses were equally qualified and earning equally, interim maintenance could not be granted to the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the Act’). The Court concurred with the Family Court’s decision and opined that after considering the respective income and expenditure of the parties, the Family Court had rightly denied any maintenance to the wife. However, considering the income of the parties and appreciating that the child’s responsibility had to be shared by both the parents, the Court reduced the interim maintenance for the child from Rs. 40,000 to Rs. 25,000.

“The object of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is to ensure that during the matrimonial proceedings either party should not be handicapped and suffer any financial disability to litigate only because of paucity of source of income.”

In Malisetti Subba Rao v. Kanneti Siva Parvathi Devi, 2017 SCC OnLine Hyd 664, a Civil Revision Petition challenging the decree and order dated 19.04.2006 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali confirming the Additional Junior Civil Judge’s order for returning the plaint for presentation in proper Court, a division bench of Suresh Kumar Kait* and N. Balayogi, JJ., held that the assignment of the promissory note at Tenali constituted a part of the cause of action under Section 20(c) of the CPC and the trial and appellate courts erred in dismissing the suit for want of jurisdiction.

In Shahana v. State of Telangana, 2017 SCC OnLine Hyd 731, a writ petitions seeking a direction to set aside detention orders dated 05-06-2016 and consequential conformation orders dated 23-08-2016, a division bench of Suresh Kumar Kait* and U. Durga Prasad Rao, JJ., noted that since the detenu committed theft through various ATMs situated at different places, and fear and panic were spread to large groups of ATM users, therefore the offences committed by the petitioners fell under the purview of Section 2(g) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986. The Court refused to set aside the impugned order.

In Manchala Balaiah v. State of A.P., 2017 SCC OnLine Hyd 188, an appeal challenging the judgment of the Sessions Court that convicted the appellant under S. 302 of the Penal Code, a Division Bench comprising of Suresh Kumar Kait and U. Durga Prasad Rao, JJ. upheld the conviction and the punishment. The case of the prosecution was that the appellant had forcibly administered poison to the deceased on account of previous grudges with the deceased’s family and also holding him responsible of practicing sorcery against him, thereby rendering him impotent. The villagers took the deceased to a hospital where he gave a dying declaration which was recorded by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police.