Known for his soft-spoken personality, calmness and a level headedness under any circumstance1; Justice D. Krishnakumar bids adieu to Manipur High Court on 21-5-2025 after a tenure of 6 months as its Chief Justice.
Early Life, Education and Career as an Advocate2
Justice D. Krishnakumar was born at Dharapuram, on 22-5-1963. He did his schooling at Government Higher Secondary School, Dharapuram and obtained his B.Sc., Degree from Presidency College, Chennai, and B.L. Degree from Madras Law College.
After finishing his legal education, Justice Krishnakumar enrolled as an Advocate in the year 1987 and joined the office of K. Duraiswamy, Senior Advocate at Madras High Court. During his career as an advocate, Justice Krishnakumar accumulated extensive experience in civil, Constitutional and service matters in the High Court, with specialization in Constitutional law.
Justice Krishnakumar’s impeccable capacity as an advocate was rewarded when he was appointed as a Government Advocate in the High Court from 1991 to 1996. Furthermore, Justice Krishnakumar also served as Additional Central Government Standing Counsel from 1998-99 and Special Government Pleader from 2001 — 2006.
Justice Krishnakumar in his capacity as a Standing Counsel also represented Teachers’ Recruitment Board, besides several Municipalities including Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, Indira Gandhi National Open University and other Government Undertakings. And, served as Special Government Pleader (Education) from 2013 till his elevation as Judge.
Career as a Judge3
Justice Krishnakumar’s legal expertise was rewarded when he was appointed as Permanent Judge of the High Court of Madras on 07-04-2016.
On 18-11-2024, the Supreme Court Collegium deemed it fit to recommend his name as Chief Justice of Manipur High Court, considering Justice Krishnakumar’s accumulated experience as an advocate; the fact that he was the senior-most puisne Judge in his parent High Court and belongs to a Backward Community.
Subsequently, the Collegium’s recommendation was accepted, and Justice Krishnakumar took oath as the 8th Chief Justice of High Court of Manipur on 22-11-2024.
Notable Judgments
In Centre for Community Initiative v. State of Manipur, 2024 SCC OnLine Mani 651, which was a PIL for making public buildings situated in Churachandpur District, Manipur accessible to people with disability and elderly persons by providing Ramps & Toilets as prescribed under Section 45(1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 read with Rule 15(a) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017, the Division Bench of D. Krishnakumar, CJ*. and Golmei Gaiphulshillu Kabui, J. directed the State Government to file a report before the Court regarding the action taken in this behalf before the next hearing.
Manipur High Court directs immigrants from Myanmar to submit their passports to the State Authorities for deportation process
The Division Bench of D. Krishnakumar, C.J*. and A. Guneshwar Sharma, J., in Khaikhenmung v. State of Manipur, 2025 SCC OnLine Mani 82, directed the petitioners (immigrants) lodged in Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa, to submit their application along with passports to the respondent authorities so that they can consider the application and take appropriate action for their deportation to their home country (Myanmar) in accordance with law as early as possible without any delay.
In S. Nithya v. Collector, 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 1676, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records relating to the rejection order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer (‘RDO’) with respect to the petitioner’s applications and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to issue Kattunayakan Community Certificate to the petitioner’s son and daughter namely, the division bench of T. Raja*, acting CJ. and D. Krishnakumar, J. quashed the rejection order dated 08-11-2022 passed by the RDO with respect to the petitioner’s applications and remitted back the matters to the RDO for passing fresh orders. Further, directed RDO to pay the cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Legal Aid Service Authority attached to this Bench.
In R. Gowrishankar v. Commissioner of Service Tax, 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 6023, the division bench of S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, JJ held that there can be no order for condonation of delay beyond the extended period of limitation, stating that when the legislative intent is indicated by the provisions of special laws that exclude the provisions of the Limitation Act, then authorities under such statutes cannot exercise power to condone the delay. The Court dismissed the writ appeal filed by the Appellant under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 against the refusal of condonation of a delay of 223 days in proceedings before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals).
S. 107 TN Hindu Religious Charitable Endowments Act recognises the protection afforded to religious and denomination Temple under the Constitution: Madras HC
The Division Bench of D. Krishnakumar and P.B. Balaji, JJ., in Arulmighu Pillaiyar Mariamman Thirukovil v. Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 6998, held that direction issued by the Writ Court, directing the Writ Petitioner/Appellant to submit accounts annually before the Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Department cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. The Court pointed out that Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 by incorporating Section 107 recognises the protection afforded to religious and denomination Temple under Article 26 of the Constitution.
Employee having tendered resignation with specific undertaking, can’t claim re-employment into High Court with continuity of service: Madras HC
The Division Bench of D. Krishnakumar and P.B. Balaji, JJ., in S. Buvanesh Kumar v. Registrar General, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 7014, rejected the petition seeking re-employment at Madras High Court after relinquishing his service as Assistant in the High Court, and joining as Senior Secretariat Assistant in the National Institute of Technical Teachers Training & Research Centre. The Court noted that while signing the relieving letter, the petitioner had signed an undertaking with a categorical condition that he shall never claim for re-employment in the Madras High Court Service under any circumstances.
In law, the Trial Court’s order must be a reasoned and speaking one: Madras High Court
The Bench of D. Krishnakumar, J., while considering a civil revision petition concerning partition of property, took note that the Trial Court’s order is a non-speaking order and no reasons were assigned in the order. In law, the trial Court’s order must be a reasoned and speaking one. It is needless to state that an unreasoned order may be just but may not appear to be sound to the individual affected. Per contra, a reasoned order will have the appearance of justice. In order to prevent aberration of justice, the impugned order is liable to be set aside in the eye of law. Therefore, the fair and final order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside.
Election Process before its culmination cannot be questioned before the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
The Division Bench of K. Kalyansundaram and D. Krishnakumar, JJ., in Satta Panchayat Iyakkam v. Chief Election Commissioner, 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 6867, held that Article 329 of the Constitution takes away the jurisdiction of the Courts in certain matters relating to Election, which are governed by Part XV of the Constitution. Clause (b) of Article 329 excludes the jurisdiction of the Courts to entertain any matter relating to Election. Further, the Election Commission has got power to take a decision to postpone the Election according to the ground reality and it cannot be questioned before the Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution.
1. Justice D. Krishnakumar Madras HC farewell: The Hindu
