Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, 28th Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court, retires

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. Demitting office on 23-5-2025, Justice Kait’s rise in the legal field speaks volumes of his perseverance and expertise.

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

During his tenure as Chief Justice of MP High Court, Justice Kait raised the issue of High Court Judge being overburdened with cases due to less judicial strength and submitted a proposal to increase the Judges’ strength of the High Court to 85 Judges.⁹

Notable Judgements

*Did you Know? During his 8-month tenure as Chief Justice of M.P High Court, Justice Suresh Kumar Kait heard around 38010 cases!¹⁰

In Roop Singh Alawa v. State of M.P., 2025 SCC OnLine MP 3833, the Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait, CJ., and Vivek Jain,* J., held that although the petitioner committed an error in judicial discretion by granting bail contrary to High Court orders, but it did not amount to grave misconduct. The Court deemed punishment of dismissal as “shockingly disproportionate” and reduced the same to “withholding of two increments without cumulative effect”. The instant petition was filed dismissal of petitioner, a judicial officer serving as Additional District and Sessions Judge in the M.P. Higher Judicial Services, for granting bail to the accused whose prior bail applications was rejected or dismissed by the High Court.

In Jitendra Ahirwar v. State of M.P., 2025 SCC OnLine MP 3668, wherein a writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking judicial intervention in connection with the vandalisation of the statue of Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar situated at Bajar Chowk, Village Dargada, Police Station Dhuma, District Seoni allegedly occurred during the night of 11-02-2025, a Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait, CJ*., and Vivek Jain, J., directed the SHO/IO and the Superintendent of Police, Seoni, to continue the investigation until the actual culprits are booked and file a monthly progress report before the concerned Magistrate.

In Mahendra Singh Taram v. State of M.P., 2025 SCC OnLine MP 3440, challenging the dismissal of a Civil Judge (petitioner), for delivering final verdicts in several criminal cases without writing judgment, a Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait, CJ.*, and Vivek Jain, J., upheld the dismissal. The Court affirmed that five charges were proved against the petitioner. The Court noted that the Enquiry Officer and Full Court has found petitioner’s conduct “unbecoming of a judicial officer” and held it to be grave misconduct under Rule 3 of the M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules. Court held that.

In Masjid Noor v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine MP 2894, challenging the alleged discriminatory action whereby Muslim civilians were being stopped from offering prayers at Masjid Noor, situated at Old Grant B-3, Land behind the Controller of Defence Account (CDA), Ridge Road, Jabalpur, M.P., a Division bench of Suresh Kumar Kait, CJ., and Vivek Jain, J., issued notice and sought clarification from respondents.

In Vyom Garg v. State of M.P., 2025 SCC OnLine MP 2683, wherein students sought relief due to non-renewal of recognition for their law colleges by the Bar Council of India (BCI), a Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait, CJ.*, and Vivek Jain, J., issued directions regarding strict renewal deadline, format compliance, timely communication, strict action against non-compliant institutions, final opportunity for institutions and affiliation process by universities. In the instant matter, the primary issue arose from the failure of certain institutions to deposit the requisite fee and fulfill renewal formalities with the Bar Council of India within the prescribed timeframe. The petitioners contended that the denial of recognition resulted in severe prejudice against them, as their enrolment applications with the State Bar Council were put on hold.

In Aaditya Narayan Pandey v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine MP 2400, filed by the petitioners, belonging to the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category, challenging the executive instructions issued by the Union Government and the State of Madhya Pradesh concerning age relaxation and the number of attempts for the Civil Services Examination (CSE), a Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait, CJ., and Vivek Jain,* J., held that no grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned executive instructions of the Central Government or the State Government of Madhya Pradesh. The Court further held that the EWS candidates cannot claim age relaxation or additional attempts as a matter of right.

While addressing the petitioners’ argument that EWS candidates deserved more attempts because they faced economic difficulties, the Court noted that the Union Government and UPSC submitted statistical data showing that EWS candidates are already applying in large numbers, and there is no indication that a lack of age relaxation or additional attempts will be a barrier. The Court further noted that the UPSC received 450—631 applications per vacancy in the EWS category, suggesting that the existing policy is not preventing adequate participation.

In Kishore Deepak Kodwani v. State of M.P., 2025 SCC OnLine MP 1701, challenging the utility and necessity of the Bus Rapid Transit System (BRTS) Corridor in the city of Indore, a division bench of Suresh Kumar Kait, CJ., and Vivek Jain, J., directed the State to remove the BRTS corridor as per its policy decision. The instant PIL raised concerns over the continued relevance of the BRTS Corridor, citing increasing traffic congestion and changes in government policies. Pursuant to the order dated 23-09-2024, a five-member expert committee was constituted to evaluate the issue. The committee concluded that due to subsequent developments, policy changes, and a substantial increase in traffic volume, the BRTS Corridor had lost its utility in the present scenario.

The Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait, CJ., and Vivek Jain, J., In Reference (Suo Motu) v. State of M.P., 2025 SCC OnLine MP 1533, laid down Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for termination of pregnancy up to and beyond 24 weeks for the survivor of sexual assault or rape or incest with additional directives. The suo motu writ petition was registered in response to conflicting judicial directions issued by two Single Benches of the Madhya Pradesh High Court regarding the termination of pregnancy under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act).

The Court opined that in case of survivors of sexual assault or rape or incest, the pregnancy upto 20 weeks may be terminated by a registered medical practitioner and where the pregnancy exceeds 20 weeks but does not exceed 24 weeks, by two registered medical practitioners in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the MTP Act, and Rules without taking resort to judicial proceedings before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, judicial approval is required only in case of survivors of sexual assault or rape or incest, for pregnancies exceeding 24 weeks, as termination beyond this period is not expressly permitted by the MTP Act.

In Alok Pratap Singh v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine MP 1266, pertaining to the disposal of hazardous waste from the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) site, a Division bench of Suresh Kumar Kait, CJ., and Vivek Jain, J., directed the respondents to proceed cautiously with three-phase trial runs to ensure public safety and compliance with environmental protocols. In the instant matter, a status report was furnished by the State Government concerning the disposal of Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) waste. The report highlighted a meeting conducted by the Chief Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh, on 11-01-2025, directing officials to educate the public on previous trial runs conducted in 2013 & 2015 and make their findings accessible to the public in simple language through local administration.

Previously in Alok Pratap Singh v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine MP 8053, pertaining to the clean-up and removal of toxic waste from the Union Carbide Factory site in Bhopal, following the catastrophic gas leak disaster that occurred 40 years ago on this date, a Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait, CJ., and Vivek Jain, J., expressed its dissatisfaction with the pace of progress in the case, highlighted the serious risks to public health and safety that persist due to the authorities’ inaction and issued directions for immediate action. The Court demanded immediate action, with a clear timeline for compliance, and stated that the failure to act could lead to serious consequences for public safety and further legal action against the authorities involved. The Court directed the Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary to appear before the Court on the next date of the hearing, if the orders are not complied with.

The Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait, CJ and Vivek Rusia, J., in Suomotu in reference to compliance of section 43 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, In re, 2024 SCC OnLine MP 8584, noted a significant increase in cases of sexual assault and harassment involving children under the age of 18 years. The Court directed the registry to register a suo moto writ petition to investigate compliance with Sections 43 and 44 of the POCSO Act and issued notices to the following respondents to file replies within four weeks.

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,¹¹ 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.

Bidding Adieu

*Did you Know? Justice Suresh Kumar Kait was a junior to former President of India, Ramnath Kovind during the former President’s active years as an advocate.¹²

Justice Suresh Kumar Kait’s journey from humble beginnings to the courtrooms is one that can be suitably categorised as legendary. During the farewell ceremony organised by the MP High Court, Justice Kait recalled the struggles of his early life as to how he had to do manual labour alongside his schooling and how he never imagined that a day may come when he will be the Chief Justice of a High Court¹³.

Ardent follower of Dr. B.R Ambedkar, Justice Suresh Kumar Kait leaves behind a legacy of perseverance in the face of hardships and commitment to the betterment of society via his judgments. The inspiring trajectory of Justice Kait’s life and career stands as a testament to the proverb “where there is a will, there is a way”. His determination and dedication to uphold the values of fairness and justice will forever act as a guiding light for all irrespective of whether they belong to the legal fraternity or not.