Justice Abhay S. Oka, a tireless Champion of Justice, bids farewell to Supreme Court of India

“The right of the accused to defend himself in a criminal trial is guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He is entitled to a fair trial. But if effective legal aid is not made available to an accused who is unable to engage an advocate, it will amount to infringement of his fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 21.”¹

– Justice Abhay S. Oka

In the realm of Indian judiciary, Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka stands as a distinguished figure, known for his profound legal acumen, unwavering commitment to justice, and relentless pursuit of upholding the rule of law. Looking into Justice Oka’s life, career and important judgments which have been instrumental in protecting the rights of marginalized communities and promoting freedom of expression, thereby making him a harbinger of social change and preserver of administrative accountability.

Early Life and Education

Born on 25-05-1960, Justice Abhay S. Oka hails from a family with legal background as his father, Shreeniwas W. Oka was a renowned lawyer.² Justice Oka did his bachelor’s in science (BSc) from Mumbai University and decided to become an engineer.

• Did You Know? Justice AS Oka at one point decided to become an engineer but gave up the idea midway and decided to join the legal fraternity instead.³

As a Lawyer

Justice Oka enrolled as an advocate on 28-06-1983 and started practising in Thane District Court in the chamber of his father.⁴ He practised for 19 years in the High Court, Appellate Side, Bombay in Civil, Constitutional and Service matters and specialised in all the matters.

• Did You Know? In 1985-86, Justice Oka joined the chamber of V. P. Tipnis, a former Judge of the Bombay High Court and former Lokayukta.⁵

Judgeship

On 29-08-2003, he was appointed as an Additional Judge of the High Court of Bombay and became a Permanent Judge in High Court of Bombay on 12-11-2005. He was appointed as the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka in 2019, before being elevated as a Supreme Court Judge in 2021.⁶

Notable Judgments by Justice Oka

Justice Oka is known for his deep knowledge of the law, impartiality, and dedication in upholding the principles of justice and his tenure as the Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka has been a living proof for exercising a delicate balance in the PIL jurisdiction, even as concurrently making sure protection from fundamental right violations of the maximum vulnerable. He also passed many orders on environmental protection and for better living conditions in Bangalore and Bombay. He is known for his orders on civil liberties. During the Covid-19 pandemic, he passed several orders protecting the rights of migrant workers and questioned the handling of the government. Some of his prominent Supreme Court and High Courts judgements are discussed below.

• Did You Know? As a Judge of Supreme Court India, Justice Abay S. Oka has authored 295 judgments and was part of 1000+ decisions.⁷

Supreme Court

In Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1158, an appeal pertaining to whether the High Court can invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC⁸ to quash proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (the DV Act), a Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ., held that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash proceedings of an application under Section 12(1) or orders passed in accordance with Sections 18 to 23 of the DV Act. However, the Court cautioned against a liberal invocation of this power:

“While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing proceedings under Section 12(1), the High Court should be very slow and circumspect. Interference can be made only when the case is clearly of gross illegality or gross abuse of the process of law.”

The Court expressly overruled contrary High Court decisions and clarified that Section 26 of the DV Act does not confer jurisdiction on civil or family courts to entertain Section 12 applications; it only allows the granting of similar reliefs if legal proceedings are otherwise pending.

In Vanashakti v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1139, a case revolving around the legality of the Office Memorandum (OM) dated o7-07-2021 (the “2021 OM”) and the Environment Impact Assessment Notification dated 14-03-2017 (the “2017 Notification”) issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), both of which enabled the grant of ex post facto Environmental Clearances (ECs) to projects that had commenced operations without prior environmental clearance as mandated under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the EIA Notification, 2006, a Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ., struck down the 2017 Notification and the 2021 OM for being illegal and unconstitutional. The Court restrained the Central Government from issuing any future orders, OMs, circulars, or notifications permitting ex post facto ECs. However, the Court held that the environmental clearances already granted under the 2017 Notification and the 2021 OM before the date of this judgment, i.e., 16-05-2025, should remain unaffected.

“Can there be development at the cost of environment? Conservation of environment and its improvement is an essential part of the concept of development. Therefore, going out of the way by issuing such OMs to protect those who have caused harm to the environment has to be deprecated by the Courts which are under a constitutional and statutory mandate to uphold the fundamental right under Article 21 and to protect the environment. In fact, the Courts should come down heavily on such attempts.”

In Prasannatma Das v. K.N. Haridasan Nambiar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1140, a bunch of civil appeals arose out of a long-standing dispute between two religious societies associated with the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) Mumbai (registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950) and ISKCON Bangalore (registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960), a Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Augustine George Masih, JJ., set aside the Karnataka High Court’s judgment and held that ISKCON Bangalore is the absolute owner of the Schedule ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’ properties and ISKCON Mumbai or its Executive Committee has no authority to control or interfere with ISKCON Bangalore.

In Tukesh Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1110, an appeal against conviction on grounds of failure to conduct a joint trial with the counter case which prejudiced the accused, a 3-judge bench of Abhay S. Oka,* Pankaj Mithal, and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ., acquitted the appellants of all charges and held that the failure of the eyewitnesses to identify the accused in the court as the accused they had seen committing the crime is fatal to the prosecution’s case.

“…unless the eyewitnesses identify the accused present in the Court, it cannot be said that, based on the testimony of the eyewitnesses, the guilt of the accused has been proved.”

In Jitender v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1099, a criminal appeal seeking reconsideration of the guidelines laid down for conferment of Senior Advocate designation in 2017 and 2023 in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, (2017) 9 SCC 766 (Indira Jaising — 1) and Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, (2023) 8 SCC 1 (Indira Jaising — 2), the 3-Judge Bench of Abhay S Oka*, Ujjal Bhuyan, and SVN Bhatti, JJ. directed that:

• the directions of Indira Jaising-1 as amended by Indira Jaising-2 shall not be implemented;

• the High Courts to frame Rules in terms of what is held in this decision within a period of 4 months from today by amending or substituting the existing Rules. The Rules shall be made keeping in view the following guidelines:

  1. The decision to confer designation shall be of the Full Court of the High Courts or this Court;

  2. The applications of all candidates found to be eligible by the Permanent Secretariat along with relevant documents submitted by the applicants shall be placed before the Full House. An endeavour can always be made to arrive at. However, if a consensus on designation of Advocates is not arrived at, the decision-making must be by a democratic method of voting. Whether in a given case there should be a secret ballot, is a decision which can be best left to the High Courts to take a call considering facts and circumstances of the given case;

  3. Minimum qualification of 10 years of practice fixed by Indira Jaising-1 needs no reconsideration;

  4. The practice of Advocates making applications for the grant of designation can continue as the act of making an application can be treated as consent of the Advocates concerned for designation. Additionally, the Full Court may consider and confer designation dehors an application in a deserving case;

  5. In the scheme of Section 16(2), there is no scope for individual Judges of this Court or High Courts to recommend candidate for designation; and

  6. At least one exercise of designation should be undertaken every calendar year.

In Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 913, a criminal appeal filed against the judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court, wherein the accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), i.e., accused of burning wife and three daughters alive 17 years ago, the three-judge bench of Abhay S Oka*, Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. upon reappreciating the evidence, found that the view taken by the High Court, that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt was a plausible and reasonable interpretation of the evidence on record. Even if an alternative view could be reasonably drawn from the same evidence, the Court reiterated that this alone does not justify overturning the order of acquittal. In criminal law, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused, and unless the evidence decisively proves guilt, the acquittal must stand.

In Compensation Amounts Deposited with Motor Accident Claims Tribunals & Labour Courts, In re, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 876, an instant suo motu petition, wherein the Court took note of large amounts payable by way of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) and the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (the 1923 Act’) which are lying deposited with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACT) and Labour Courts; the Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ., pointed out that it is not clear how many States have exercised the rulemaking power under Section 176(a) of the MV Act for prescribing the form of the application under Section 166(1) of the MV Act. Applications for compensation can be made by the persons who have sustained injuries or by the owners of the damaged property and in case of fatal accidents, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased. Even an agent duly authorised by the person injured or the legal representatives of the deceased can also file a claim petition.

In Ramesh Kumaran v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 667, a criminal appeal against the Madras High Court dismissing the plea for quashment of criminal proceedings in a matter arising from a dispute between two advocates, practicing in the Courts at Kodaikanal, the Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. allowed the appeal and quashed the FIR and impugned proceedings.

“An attempt made all along by this Court was to bring about a settlement between the first appellant and the second respondent who are members of the Bar practising before the same Courts. The reason was that this Court felt that both of them, instead of fighting cases against each other, should contribute to the legal system by representing litigants before the Court. We felt that the pending cases may adversely affect the professional prospects of both the first appellant and the second respondent.”

While considering the instant appeal in K. Gopi v. Sub-Registrar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 740, which incorporated a challenge to the legality of Rule 55A(i) of the Registration Rules; the Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ., declared the impugned Rule to be ultra-vires. The Court explained that under the scheme of the 1908 Act, it is not the function of the Sub-Registrar or Registering Authority to ascertain whether the vendor has title to the property which he is seeking to transfer. Once the registering authority is satisfied that the parties to the document are present before him and the parties admit execution thereof before him, subject to making procedural compliances as narrated above, the document must be registered. The execution and registration of a document have the effect of transferring only those rights, if any, that the executant possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any transfer.

“No provision under the 1908 Act confers power on any authority to refuse registration of a transfer document on the ground that the documents regarding the title of the vendor are not produced, or if his title is not established”.

While considering the instant appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the impugned order the High Court whereby the Court let go of the respondents (accused persons) taking into account their old age in State of M.P. v. Shyamlal, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 590; the 3-Judge Bench of Abhay S. Oka,* Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Agustine George Masih, JJ., opined that considering the pendency of very old criminal appeals, priority is usually given to the hearing of the appeals where the accused are in prison. The appeals against conviction where the accused are on bail take a backseat. However, a right balance must be struck by taking up for hearing even some of the old criminal appeals against conviction where accused are on bail. Therefore, it is desirable that certain categories of appeals against conviction where the accused are on bail should be given priority.

In Mahesh Mukund Patel v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 614, a criminal appeal filed against the order passed by the Allahabad High Court wherein, the Court had stated that an application for dropping the criminal proceedings based on compromise to be moved before the Trial Court, the division bench of Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ., said that the High Court overlooked the fact that the Trial Court could not have recorded the settlement, and this was a suitable case for the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) to quash the proceedings. As a result, the parties were unnecessarily compelled to approach the Court. The Court’s attention was also drawn to the marriage certificate issued by the Registrar of Hindu Marriages and Sub Registrar, Varanasi, which records that the marriage between the accused and the victim was solemnized on 5-02-2016. It was further brought to the Court’s notice that from the wedlock between the accused and the victim, two children have been born. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside. The First Information Report (‘FIR’) and the proceedings of Sessions Trial pending before the Special Judge were quashed.

In Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 299, a set of two civil appeals wherein reference was made to a Larger Bench to deal with conflicting views on the applicability of Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (‘1955 Act’) whether alimony can be granted where marriage has been declared void, the Three Judge Bench of Abhay S. Oka,* Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine George Masih, JJ. answered the issue in the affirmative. The Court held- A spouse whose marriage has been declared void under Section 11 of the 1955 Act is entitled to seek permanent alimony or maintenance from the other spouse by invoking Section 25 of the 1955 Act. The grant of relief of permanent alimony can be granted or not always depends on the facts of each case and the conduct of the parties, as it is always discretionary. Even if a Court comes to a prima facie conclusion that the marriage between the parties is void or voidable, pending the final disposal of the proceeding under the 1955 Act, the Court is not precluded from granting maintenance pendente lite provided the conditions mentioned in Section 24 are satisfied.

“A grant of a decree under Section 25 of the 1955 Act is discretionary. If the conduct of the spouse who applies for maintenance is such that the said spouse is not entitled to discretionary relief, the Court can always turn down the prayer for the grant of permanent alimony under Section 25 of the 1955 Act. Equitable considerations do apply when the Court considers the prayer for maintenance under Section 25. The reason is that Section 25 lays down that while considering the prayer for granting relief under Section 25, the conduct of the parties must be considered.”

While considering the instant suo motu petition revolving around the power of the appropriate Government to remit the whole or a part of the sentence of the convicts in Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In re, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 349; the Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ., concluded the following:

1. Where there is a policy of the appropriate Government laying down guidelines for consideration of the grant of premature release under Section 432 of the CrPC, it is the obligation of the appropriate Government to consider cases of all convicts for grant of premature release as and when they become eligible for consideration in terms of the policy. In such a case, it is not necessary for the convict or his relatives to make a specific application for grant of permanent remission.

2. In accordance with the afore-said conclusion, the District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs) shall endeavour to implement NALSA SOP in its true letter and spirit. Furthermore, the DLSAs shall maintain the relevant date of the convicts and as and when they become eligible to a consideration for grant of premature release. The State Legal Services Authorities shall endeavour to create a portal on which the data as aforesaid can be uploaded on real time basis.

3. The Court also directed those States and Union Territories that do not have a policy dealing with the grant of remission in terms of Section 432 of the CrPC to formulate a policy within two months from 18-2-2025.

4. The Court further concluded that Appropriate Government has the power to incorporate suitable conditions in an order granting permanent remission. The conditions must aim at ensuring that the criminal tendencies, if any, of the convict remain in check and that the convict rehabilitates himself in the society. The conditions should not be so oppressive or stringent that the convict is not able to take advantage of the order granting permanent remission. The conditions cannot be vague and should be capable of being performed.

In Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau, (2025) 3 SCC 1, a set of two criminal appeals, the Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. answered the issue that whether it is necessary to implead a Foreign Registration Officer appointed under Rule 3 of the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992 (‘the Rules’) in the bail application filed by a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (‘the Act’) in negative. The Bench opined that while releasing a foreigner on bail, the Court should direct the investigating agency or the State, as the case may be, to immediately inform the concerned Registration Officer appointed under Rule 3 of the Rules about the grant of bail so that the Registration Officer can bring the fact of the grant of bail to the notice of Civil Authority concerned.

“The power to arrest or detain a foreigner under the Foreigners Act, 1946 is independent of the power of the Criminal Court to grant bail. Notwithstanding the bail granted by a Criminal Court, the power to arrest and detain a foreigner can be exercised, provided the Central Government makes an order in terms of clause (g) of Section 3(2) of the Act.”

In State of Punjab v. Om Prakash, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 119, a batch of civil appeals, against Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision, allowing the appeal of the present respondents, holding that mere declaration of brick earth as a minor mineral, no rights were vested in the State Government to levy royalty, the Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s decision and restored the Trial Court’s decree dismissing the respondents’ suit. The Court held that once it was accepted that brick earth was a minor mineral under the Mineral Rules, the State Government had the right to levy royalty on the production and disposal of minor minerals.

In Allahabad High Court Bar Assn. v. State of U.P., (2024) 6 SCC 267, the Constitution Bench comprising of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI along with Abhay S. Oka*, JB Pardiwala, Pankaj Mithal** and Manoj Misra, JJ., reversed its own 2018 ruling of a 3-Judge Bench and held that Constitutional Courts should not fix a timeline for disposal of cases pending in any court while exercising powers under Article 142. The Court further justified the stance that pattern of cases pending in various courts including High Courts is different.

In In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2055, a suo motu cognizance of the Calcutta High Court’s decision in Probhat Purkait v. State of W.B., (2023) 1 HCC (Cal) 626, whereby the High Court issued a slew of advisories to the male and female adolescents regarding the respect of a woman, protection of self-worth, dignity and privacy, and right to autonomy of the female’s body, and advised the female adolescent, identifying the duty or obligation to control sexual urge/urges as in the eyes of society she is the looser when she gives in to enjoying the sexual pleasure of hardly two minutes, the Division Bench of Abhay S Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. set aside the impugned decision.

In Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau, (2024) 8 SCC 415, a special leave to appeal against the Delhi High Court’s decision imposing condition for granting interim bail to a Nigerian national, accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’), the Division Bench of Abhay S Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. while examining that whether a bail condition requiring an accused to share Google Maps pin with the investigating officer to access his location violates right to privacy, said that there can’t be a bail condition enabling the police to constantly track the movement of the accused on bail.

“…the object of the bail condition cannot be to keep a constant vigil on the movements of the accused enlarged on bail. The investigating agency cannot be permitted to continuously peep into the private life of the accused enlarged on bail, by imposing arbitrary conditions since that will violate the right of privacy of the accused, as guaranteed by Article 21.”

In Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763, a criminal appeal by a Judicial Officer assailing the Rajasthan High Court’s decision to the extent of adverse remarks and directions made against him, the Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Augustine George Masih, JJ., allowed the appeal and expunged the adverse directions and remarks, holding that no Constitutional Court can direct the Trial Courts to write orders on bail applications in a particular manner. The Court opined that the High Court’s observations against the Judicial Officer were completely uncalled for, the entire exercises done by the High Court right from issuing directions in the case of Jugal Kishore v. State of Rajasthan, 2020 SCC OnLine Raj 2691, and passing impugned orders was not only unwarranted but illegal.

“The Constitutional Courts can lay down the principles governing the grant of bail or anticipatory bail, however, the Constitutional Courts cannot interfere with the discretion of Trial Courts by laying down the form in which an order should be passed while deciding bail applications…Explanation of a Judicial Officer can be called for only on the administrative side.”

In Ashok v. State of U.P., (2025) 2 SCC 381, a criminal appeal filed against the conviction order of a man accused of rape and murder of a ten-year-old minor, passed by the Trial Court and upheld by the Allahabad High Court, the three Judge bench of Abhay S. Oka,* Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih, JJ. set aside the conviction, as the accused was not provided with proper legal aid during the trial, which violated his fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, the Court issued a series of directives concerning the critical roles of the Public Prosecutor and Legal Aid Counsels in ensuring procedural fairness and safeguarding the fundamental rights of the accused in criminal trials.

“The right of the accused to defend himself in a criminal trial is guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He is entitled to a fair trial. But if effective legal aid is not made available to an accused who is unable to engage an advocate, it will amount to infringement of his fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 21.”

In Global Credit Capital Ltd. v. Sach Markerting (P) Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 649, a batch of civil appeals against separate judgments and orders of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), the Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Pankaj Mithal, JJ., dealt with the question that, when a debt is considered as financial debt and operational debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The Bench said that the test to determine whether a debt is a financial debt within the meaning of Section 5(8) is the existence of a debt along with interest, if any, which is disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money.

In Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, (2024) 10 SCC 574, the appellant who was being prosecuted for offences punishable under provisions of Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 13, 18, 18-A and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA); had applied for bail before the Patna High Court, which was rejected. The Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Agustine George Masih, JJ., while hearing the instant appeal challenging the impugned judgment of Patna High Court, emphatically reiterated that when a case is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. “The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious, but the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law.

“Bail is the rule, and jail is an exception” is a settled law”.

The Court also berated the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for distortions in chargesheet vis-a-vis attributing certain statements to the protected witness, which he did not make.

“NIA owes an explanation for that. The investigating machinery has to be fair”

In Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava v. State of Jharkhand, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 309, a criminal appeal against Jharkhand High Court’s order dismissing the challenge to the Trial Court and Sessions Court’s decision for payment of interim compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the respondent under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act), the Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ., set aside the impugned judgments for non-application of mind. The Court laid down several factors which must be considered by the Courts while exercising discretionary power under Section 143-A of the N.I. Act.

In Noble M. Paikada v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 369, appeals challenging judgment and order passed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) on 28-10-2020 and order dated 24-12-2020 by NGT rejecting review petition, the Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Sanjay Karol, JJ. found item 6 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 (EP Rules) granting blanket exemption to the Central Government for obtaining environmental clearance. The Court struck down item 6 of the substituted Appendix-IX forming part of the impugned notification dated 28-03-2020 and item 6 of amended impugned notification dated 30-08-2023.

In Sailendrabhai Damodarbhai Shah v. State of Gujarat, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 285, a criminal appeal against Gujarat High Court’s decision, wherein the State’s appeal against the order of the Trial Court acquitting the accused of the charges under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was allowed, setting aside the Trial Court’s order and the matter was remanded for trial de novo, the Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order. Further, the Court said that the burden of proof cannot be put on the accused to prove that they were not manufacturing table top sweeteners as the State’s case was not that the accused were manufacturing tabletop sweeteners.

In Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 249, a criminal appeal filed against the Bombay High Court’s order, wherein the Court refused to quash the FIR against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 153-A of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the division bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ., while setting aside the impugned judgment and quashing the FIR, said that if every criticism or protest of the actions of the State, such as criticising abrogation of Art. 370 on whatsapp status or wishing Independence Day to Pakistan, is to be held as an offence under Section 153-A, democracy, which is an essential feature of the Constitution of India, will not survive. The right to dissent in a legitimate and lawful manner is an integral part of the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).

In High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 207, a Constitution Bench comprising of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI along with Abhay S. Oka*, JB Pardiwala, Pankaj Mithal** and Manoj Misra, JJ., reversed its own 2018 ruling of a 3-Judge Bench and held that Constitutional Courts should not fix a timeline for disposal of cases pending in any court while exercising powers under Article 142. The Court further justified the stance that pattern of cases pending in various courts including High Courts is different. Abhay S. Oka, J., held that constitutional Courts should not normally fix a time-bound schedule for disposal of cases pending in any Court, since the situation at the grassroots level is better known to the judges of the Courts concerned.

“To avoid any prejudice to the opposite parties, while granting ex-parte ad-interim relief without hearing the affected parties, the High Courts should normally grant ad-interim relief for a limited duration”

In Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 601, a division bench of Abhay S Oka* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ., was called upon to decide an interesting and important question of law revolving around the rights of non-tribals residing in the Scheduled Areas, the Court has held that Non-Tribals can settle down and vote in Scheduled Areas. The matter specifically pertained to Sundargarh District in Odisha, that was declared as a Scheduled Area on 31.12.1977.

In First Global Stockbroking (P) Ltd. v. Anil Rishiraj, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1199, an appeal against the judgment passed by the Bombay High Court, wherein the Court has dismissed an application filed by the appellants under Section 482 of the CrPC, the division bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Sanjay Karol, JJ., has held that an Enforcement Officer can file a complaint under repealed provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) during the sunset period of 2 years, after enforcement of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA).

In Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1155, an appeal filed by a convict against the judgment passed by the Gujarat High Court, wherein the Court convicted some of the accused, while acquitting others in a case, the division bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Sanjay Karol, JJ. has acquitted the convict by setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court and the impugned judgment of the High Court. Further, it acquitted other 3 convicts, by suo motu exercising its powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and extended the benefit of parity to these convicts who did not challenge the judgment of the High Court.

“The Criminal Court should decide like cases alike, and in such cases, the Court cannot make a distinction between the two accused, which will amount to discrimination”.

In Pradeep v. State of Haryana, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 777, a Criminal Appeal challenging the judgment and order passed by Punjab and Haryana High Court on 12-01-2009 dismissing appeal by against conviction order passed by the Trial Court for offences punishable under Sections 302, 449 and 324 read with Section 34 of IPC, the Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. set aside both the judgments of Trial and High Court and acquitted the appellant while holding the conviction solely based on the testimony of child witness which did not inspire confidence to be unsafe. The Court opined that the possibility of child witness being tutored could not be ruled out, since there was no support or corroboration to his testimony apart from other deficiencies in the prosecution case.

In Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1586, a criminal appeal against the Karnataka High Court’s judgment, whereby the accused person’s application under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing the complaint filed by Directorate of Enforcement (ED) under the second proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), the Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Pankaj Mithal, JJ., held that an accused in the PMLA case who comes into picture after the scheduled offence is committed by assisting in the concealment or use of proceeds of crime need not be an accused in the scheduled offence and such an accused can still be prosecuted under PMLA so long as scheduled offence exists.

In Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 609, a Criminal Appeal against conviction by the Trial Court in 2003 for offences under Ss. 302, 307 read with S. 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860, sentence of life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years, which was confirmed by the High Court, the Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ., set aside the appellant’s conviction for being vitiated and directed the State to set him at liberty. The Court observed that the only circumstance appearing against the appellant was not put to him in the statement under Section 313 of CrPC, remaining untouched by the High Court as well, and that the Trial Court also did not produce submissions made by the counsel for accused.

In Shanti Bhushan v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 489, a case related to determination of the market value of a property at Allahabad, registered in 2010 for the purpose of stamp duty, the Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ., allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court of Allahabad and Assistant Stamp Collector (Collector) and has remanded the case for fresh consideration to the Collector. The Court held that market value is the one which a bona fide and willing buyer will offer. It was further noted that there was no doubt that a property in possession of a tenant will fetch lesser value in the open market than the market value of a similar property exclusively in possession of the vendor.

In Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 345, the division bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ., allowed an appeal against the order of life-time sentence to the accused by the Trial Court for offence punishable under S. 302 of Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and modified the sentence to a fixed-term period of 30 years. The appeal before the Court was limited to the modification of the awarded sentence by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC. The Court held that Constitutional Courts could exercise power of imposing a modified or fixed-term sentence even where capital punishment is not imposed or proposed.

In Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 326, the full bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S. Oka* and Manoj Misra, JJ. held that affinity test is not a litmus test to decide a caste claim and is not an essential part in the process of the determination of correctness of a caste or tribe claim in every case.

In a criminal appeal filed against order of the Delhi High Court upholding the order of conviction the Special Judge, Delhi, wherein the Court convicted the appellant/convict for the offences punishable under S. 7(i) and (ii), S. 13(1)(d) read with S 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the division bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ., in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 280, reiterated that in absence of direct evidence for offences punished under Prevention of Corruption Act, reliance can be placed on circumstantial evidence to prove demand of gratification and set aside the order of conviction.

In a detailed judgment of Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya v. District Development Officer Dahod, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 507, the bench of Ajay Rastogi* and Abhay S. Oka*, JJ., while stressing on the importance of the work done by the Anganwadi workers/helpers at the grassroot level, held that Anganwadi workers/helpers are entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Writing separate but concurrent opinions, both the judges agreed that the Anganwadi Workers/Helpers have been entrusted with the important tasks of providing food security to children in the age group of 6 months to 6 years, pregnant women as well as lactating mothers, apart from rendering pre-school education. And for all this, they are being paid very meagre remuneration and paltry benefits.

“If we look towards the problems plaguing the Anganwadi workers/helpers, the first and foremost, they are not holders of civil posts due to which they are deprived of a regular salary and other benefits that are available to employees of the State. Instead of a salary, they get only a so called paltry ‘honorarium’ (much lower 24 than the minimum wages) on the specious ground that they are part-time voluntary workers, working only for about 4 hours a day.”

In K. Shanthamma v. State of Telangana, (2022) 4 SCC 574, an interesting case relating to corruption, the Division Bench of Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka*, JJ., acquitted a Commercial Tax Officer despite proved recovery of tainted currency notes from her. The Bench observed that though the recovery was proved in the absence of demand being conclusively proved conviction cannot be made under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.

In Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority v. Rama Kant Singh, (2022) 3 SCC 237, a case relating to Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes, the Division bench of Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka*, JJ held that if any of the provisions of the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 are in conflict with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the 2008 Act shall prevail to the extent of the conflict.

While deciding an appeal in Deepak v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 99, where the appellant challenged the externment order issued against him under S. 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, the Division Bench of Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka*, JJ., quashed the impugned externment order observing that an order of externment is not an ordinary measure and it must be resorted to sparingly and in extraordinary circumstances. The Bench held that,

“If the order of externment for the maximum permissible period of two years is passed without recording subjective satisfaction regarding the necessity of extending the order of externment to the maximum permissible period, it will amount to imposing unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution”.

In Debananda Tamuli v. Kakumoni Kataky, (2022) 5 SCC 459, a case where it was argued that merely because husband and wife are staying separately since a long time, an inference regarding desertion cannot be drawn, the bench of Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka*, JJ held that whether a case of desertion is established or not will depend on the peculiar facts of each case. It is a matter of drawing an inference based on the facts brought on record by way of evidence.

In a breather to SK Supiyan, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamta Banerjee’s Election Agent in the Vidhan Sabha Elections held in 2021, the bench of L Nageswara Rao and Abhay S. Oka*, JJ in S.K. Supiyan v. CBI, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 164, granted him anticipatory bail in the Nandigram murder case but has directed him to fully cooperate with CBI for investigation and to remain present for investigation as and when called upon by the investigating officer. The Court made clear that the pre-arrest bail is liable to be cancelled if it is found that the appellant is not cooperating for the investigation.

In Vasudha Sethi v. Kiran V. Bhaskar, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 43, a Division Bench of Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka*, JJ., held that in a case for custody of the child the rights of the parties to a custody dispute (parents) are irrelevant. However, adding an exception, the Bench stated,

“We may note here that a writ Court while dealing with the issue of habeas corpus cannot direct a parent to leave India and to go abroad with the child. If such orders are passed against the wishes of a parent, it will offend her/his right to privacy.”

In Vinod Kumar v. Amritpal, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1150, a Division bench of Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka*, JJ held that once the prosecution establishes the existence of the three ingredients forming a part of “thirdly” in Section 300, it is irrelevant whether there was an intention on the part of the accused to cause death. Further, it does not matter that there was no intention even to cause the injury of a kind that is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Even the knowledge that an act of that kind is likely to cause death is not necessary to attract “thirdly”.

In Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1000, a Division bench of Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka*, JJ granted bail to Thwaha Fasal and Allan Shuaib, booked under punishable under Ss. 20, 38 and 39 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 for alleged links with Communist Party of India (Maoist). The Court noticed that in the absence of sanction and the fact that NIA did not even seek sanction for the offence punishable under S. 20, a prima facie case of the accused being involved in the said offence is not made out at this stage.

In State of M.P. v. Somdutt Sharma, (2021) 12 SCC 53, a Division Bench comprising of Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka*, JJ., held that Irrigation Department was not a factory within the meaning of Factories Act, 1948 as there was no indulgence in manufacturing process in the Department. The Bench expressed that, “even assuming that some of the employees may be doing the work of pumping of water, that is not sufficient to hold that Irrigation Department of the first appellant is carrying on manufacturing process.”

“Overall activities and functions of the Irrigation Department would have to be considered while deciding the question whether it is carrying on manufacturing activities.”

In Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar, (2021) 10 SCC 725, a bench of Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka*, JJ held that when the chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete, falsity of the defence is no ground to convict the accused.

“…falsity of defence cannot take the place of proof of facts which the prosecution has to establish in order to succeed. A false plea can at best be considered as an additional circumstance, if other circumstances point unfailingly to the guilt of the accused.”

High Court

In Girish Bharadwaj v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 445, a Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka, CJ and B.V. Nagarathna, J. while addressing a petition about the release of information of people who contracted COVID-19 at Nizamuddin, Delhi, remarked that it is a policy decision and Court cannot interfere in the same.

In Sandhya U. Prabhu v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 441, a Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka, CJ and B.V. Nagarathna, J., while addressing a petition held that “…decision to keep open super markets 24×7 relates to purely a policy decision and nothing arbitrary in the said policy decision is found.”

In Mohammed Arif Jameel v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 391, a Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka, CJ and B.V. Nagarathna, J. asked the State Government of Karnataka to take cognizance on various significant issues that have been raised in wake of the outbreak of Corona Virus., like – Supply of hot meal to pregnant women, lactating mothers, malnutritioned children & needy people.

In Mohammed Arif Jameel v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 539, a petition dealing with issue of migrant workers who had applied to be accommodated to the Shramik Special Trains to their origin State, a Division Bench of Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, CJ and B.V. Nagarathna, J. held that,“…though several orders have been passed by this Court from time-to-time, the State has not placed on record any transparent and fair policy for selecting persons out of those who registered on Seva Sindhu website.”

In Vijayakumar Rai v. State of Karnataka, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 2186, a Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka, CJ. and Mohammad Nawaz, J. directed the state government to refund the amount already deducted from the salaries of judicial officers by the end of February 2020. The Court held that the State has no power to tinkle with quantum of salaries and pension payable to judicial officers and new defined Contributory Pension Scheme not applicable to them.

In Monkeys Death – Suo Motu, in re, 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 15713, a Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka CJ and N S Sanjay Gowda J. remarked that it is necessary to lay down the guidelines to ensure that inhuman and shocking incidents of animal cruelty are hereafter prevented. The Court took up suo moto cognizance of large number of monkey deaths on the roadside in Belur Taluk of Hassan District on Wednesday night after 15 alive monkeys who were put in a large bag were found as per news reports published in the leading newspapers — Deccan Herald, Indian Express, Times of India, Prajavani, etc.

In Sanathana Kalakshetra v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 871, a Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka, CJ and M. Nagaprasanna, J., while addressing a matter held that“…right to construct unauthorized temple and that also on a footpath cannot be said to be an essential part of any religion or religious practice which can be protected under Article 25 of the Constitution of India.”

In V. Mara Nayaka v. State of Karnataka, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 681, the Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka, C.J. and H.T. Narendra Prasad, J. while not going into the legal issue involved – PIL against construction of hostel building for girl students belonging to Scheduled Caste, dismissed the petition and held that the act of the petitioner is not pro bono and should not be allowed to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by filing a Public Interest Litigation.

In High Court of Karnataka v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 762, a Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka, CJ and Vishwajith Shetty, J., laid down the guidelines to be followed for payment of dues to the claimants in Motor Vehicle Accident Claim cases, Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 Matrimonial Cases and Land Acquisition Compensation cases etc. Due to the partial functioning of the district and trial Courts in the State in view of the COVID-19 Pandemic, entry of litigants in the Courts premises has not been permitted.

In High Court of Karnataka v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 543, a Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka, CJ and S Vishwajith Shetty, J., while dealing with many issues held that no legal basis for Family Courts insisting on personal presence of petitioners at the time of filing cases and presence of complainant while filing S. 138 of the NI Act case not necessary.

In Mohammed Arif Jameel v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 448, a Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka, CJ and B.V. Nagarathnna, J. held that, owners of seized vehicles due to breach of COVID-19 Guidelines may approach jurisdictional Police Officers for the same. The Cour stated that “…in case of such seizure of vehicles for the offences relating to breach of the directions concerning COVID-19, it will be open for the jurisdictional Police Officers to exercise the powers under sub- section (3) of Section 102 of Cr.P.C and to give custody of the vehicles in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 102 to the owners.”

In K.C. Kondaiah v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 2419, a Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka CJ. and Ashok S. Kinagi J., while partly allowing the present petition, discussed the powers and obligations of the State Election Commission and the limited intervention of the State Government in exercise of such powers.

In SEBI v. Franklin Templeton, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 1650, a Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka CJ. and Ashok S.Kinagi J., while allowing the present writ petition held, “the decision of the Trustees (the Franklin Templeton Trustee Services private Limited) to wind up six Schemes mentioned in paragraph-1 of the Judgment by taking recourse to sub-clause (a) of clause (2) of Regulation 39 of the Mutual Funds Regulations cannot be implemented unless the consent of the unit-holders is obtained in accordance with sub-clause (c) of clause (15) of Regulation 18.”

In High Court of Karnataka v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 557, a Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka, CJ and S. Vishwajith Shetty, J., in view of the present situation of COVID-19 outbreak held that, “…course adopted by the Courts while recording the plea of the accused and recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of CrPC through video conferencing hearing will be step taken to reduce the physical presence of the stakeholders in the Courts precincts to meet the exceptional situation and to secure the functioning of the Courts by following the best possible health practice.”

Justice Oka’s Views and Initiatives

• Did You Know? During the tenure of Justice A.S. Oka as the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, the Court become a constitutional shield for the protection of the rights of many marginalised communities including slum dwellers, sweepers, prisoners and transgender persons.⁹

Justice Oka took the Public Interest Litigation’s version of locus standi seriously and used it in facilitative role as opposed to a “command-and-control” position.¹⁰ His conviction to uphold justice, harbingering social change and preserving administrative accountability can be reflected through his judgments like — right to protest and requirements of Section 144 of CrPC, Rights of the urban poor: illegal evictions, Right to shelter: upholding the state’s obligation to provide shelter to the homeless under Article 21 of the Constitution and ordering the setting up requisite night shelters for the homeless across urban areas in the State, right of prisoners, Secularism, inviolable right to legal representation, combating atrocities against Scheduled Castes & Tribes, implementation of prohibition on manual scavenging and judicial intervention in the COVID-19 crisis.

On Technology and Courts¹¹

Justice Oka while delivering a lecture on ‘The Role of Technology in courts: Accessible justice, timely justice’ at the High Court of Bombay, recommended all high courts to start using technology to rule out manual intervention and automate the listing of new cases. According to him, technology will help in bringing transparency in Constitutional Courts and their way of working.

On Importance of District Court

Justice Oka believes that if one must succeed in the high courts or the Supreme Court, they must spend a few years as a lawyer in trial courts. He himself has credited his success to his time in the trial courts.¹² Justice Oka said that District and taluka courts play an important role in providing justice to common people therefore they are the core of the judicial system and should not be looked upon as “secondary courts”.¹³

Alarm over Eroding Public Trust in Judiciary¹⁴

While addressing at 2nd Shyamlha Pappu memorial lecture on ‘Access to justice in the context of 75 years of the Indian Constitution’, Justice Oka emphasised that the judiciary, despite being a vital pillar of democracy, has not adequately met the expectations of the common citizen. He underlined the importance of remaining connected with the real-world challenges litigants face. He expressed concern that the justice delivery system has not evolved in pace with public needs and that essential aspects — accessibility, quality, and affordability of justice—remain serious concerns.

“I firmly believe that judges should not stay in ivory towers. What I can gather from my interaction with stakeholders is that the judiciary has not fulfilled the expectations of the common citizens of India. We are lagging far behind… After India became a republic, every citizen had very high expectations towards easy access to justice. It is not simply filing complaints before courts or police. It has to be quality and expeditious justice at reasonable cost,”

Media Trials undermines Justice System¹⁵

In a compelling address during a webinar “Towards a Responsible and Reliable Judiciary in India” organized by the All India Lawyers’ Association for Justice (AILAJ), Justice Oka raised serious concerns about the influence of media trials on the judicial process and emphasized the urgent need for reforms to ensure a more equitable and efficient justice system.

Justice Oka highlighted the detrimental effect of public pressure and sensationalised reporting on judicial independence and stated that “media trials create an atmosphere of pressure when heinous crimes are committed, which could affect the delivery of justice.” He asserted that the role of a judge is confined to examining the admissibility of evidence and determining guilt based on proof beyond reasonable doubt and “if a judge goes by social media or media pressure, then what they will grant is moral conviction.”

Justice Oka also acknowledged the perception among ordinary citizens that the judiciary is not fully independent and stated that “Judges should introspect more. Why do common people and litigants have the impression that the judiciary is not independent?”

Hate Speech in India¹⁶

At an event hosted by Columbia Law School, Justice Abhay S. Oka delivered a powerful address on the theme “Hate Speech: Against Religious and Caste Minorities,” offering a candid assessment of the rising use of hate speech in India, particularly in political discourse. Drawing on constitutional principles and judicial precedents, Justice Oka underscored the corrosive impact of hate speech on both individual dignity and democratic values.

Justice Oka began by outlining India’s unique social and linguistic diversity and stated that unlike many other nations, India does not share a single language or homogenous culture as its vast population comprises various religious groups, castes, and ethnic communities, including historically oppressed classes such as Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, nomadic tribes, and Other Backward Classes.

Justice Oka provided a working definition of hate speech as any form of communication, verbal, written, or symbolic, that spreads hatred against particular communities based on religion, race, caste, or ethnicity. These speeches often incite violence or enmity between groups, threatening both societal harmony and constitutional values. He stressed that hate speech not only violates legal statutes but also deeply injures the constitutional promise of dignity. It strips individuals of their right to live respectfully and securely within the social fabric. In this light, hate speech becomes not merely a legal issue but a moral and constitutional crisis.

“The provisions regarding hate speeches or provisions which make certain speeches or utterances or spoken or written words as offences — those provisions cannot be abused or misused to prevent people from expressing their views, expressing their dissent.”

Bidding Farewell¹⁷

At his farewell function, held in advance of his retirement due to the Court’s summer schedule, heartfelt tributes were paid by colleagues, members of the bar, and court staff. Chief Justice of India, B.R. Gavai, recalling a friendship of more than forty years, described Justice Oka as a man of remarkable dedication and humility, “a workaholic” whose legal mind is matched only by his sense of fairness.

Justice Gavai, in his remarks, commended Justice Oka’s industrious nature and emphasised that his “retirement would not be a retirement, but the beginning of a new life.” Colleagues noted that even after superannuation, Justice Oka would remain active, having expressed an interest in restricted consultation work.

The Secretary of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), Nikhil Jain lauded Justice Oka’s contributions to civil society, calling his judgments both “grounded and far-reaching.” SCAORA President Vipin Nair likened his unwavering presence in the legal landscape to that of a mighty oak — strong, enduring, and dependable.

Justice Oka, in his parting address, reaffirmed his commitment to service till the last hour. He openly expressed disagreement with the tradition of judges not sitting in court on their final day, stating his wish to continue hearing matters and delivering judgments on his last working day. He further urged continued efforts in training and nurturing young members of the Bar, underlining the importance of judicial education and cooperation.

Legacy

As he steps away from the Bench, Justice Oka leaves behind a judicial legacy rich in wisdom, fairness, and humanity. His commitment to justice was not only limited to interpreting the law but extended to ensuring that the law served the people. He has set a benchmark for future generations of legal fraternity, a reminder that service to the Constitution and to society does not end with retirement. Justice Oka may have laid down his judge’s robes, but his contributions will continue to guide the path of Indian jurisprudence for years to come.

* Judge who has penned the judgment.