Know Thy Newly Appointed Supreme Court Judge: Justice Vijay Bishnoi

Born on 26-03-1964, Justice Vijay Bishnoi embarked on a journey marked by dedication and academic pursuits. Having entered the legal profession in 1989, Justice Bishnoi subsequently ascended to higher echelons of judiciary, thereby traversing a commendable trajectory in the corridors of justice.

Education and Career Trajectory of Justice Vijay Bishnoi¹

Career as an Advocate

Justice Vijay Bishnoi’s educational voyage culminated with the attainment of LL. B. degree, thereby laying the foundation for a remarkable career in law.

Having enrolled as an Advocate on 08-07-1989, Justice Bishnoi practiced mostly at Rajasthan High Court and Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur. He specialised in Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, and Election Law, and his journey prior to elevation as Judge was marked by multifaceted roles and commendable accomplishments. He served as Counsel for a myriad of esteemed entities including government departments such as Rural Development & Panchayat Raj, Stamps & Registration, Co-operative, Labour, Transport, and Excise Departments.

Justice Bishnoi’s expertise extended to representing notable bodies like the National Highway Authority of India Limited (NHAI), Rajasthan State Electricity Board, and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). His tenure as counsel also saw him advocating for educational institutions such as Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology Udaipur and Jai Narayan Vyas University Jodhpur, along with various Central Co-operative Banks. Additionally, his role as Counsel for the Bar Council of India & Bar Council of Rajasthan at Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, underscored his commitment to legal governance. Through these endeavors, he solidified his reputation as a legal luminary, poised for further contributions to the realm of law.

As a testament to Justice Bishnoi’s extensive experience in varied fields of law, he was given the responsibility to serve as Additional Central Govt. Standing Counsel during the years 2000-2004.

Judgeship

In recognition of his stellar career and experience as an Advocate, Justice Vijay Bishnoi was appointed as Additional Judge of the Rajasthan High Court on 08-1-2013. He was later elevated as a Permanent Judge of the Rajasthan High Court on 07-1-2015².

The Supreme Court Collegium vide resolution dated 27-12-2023³ recommended Justice Vijay Bishnoi as the Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court and he was sworn in on 05-02-2024.⁴

The Supreme Court while recommending Justice Bishnoi as Chief Justice stated⁵–

“The Collegium recommends the appointment of Justice Vijay Bishnoi as the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court. Justice Vijay Bishnoi was appointed as a Judge of the Rajasthan High Court on 08-01-2013 and has been functioning there as a senior puisne Judge. Before his elevation as a Judge of the High Court, he practiced at the Rajasthan High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal at Jodhpur. (…) While recommending his name, the Collegium has taken into consideration the fact that at present the Rajasthan High Court which is parent High Court of Justice Bishnoi is not represented among the Chief Justices of the High Courts.”

During his stewardship as Chief Justice, the Gauhati High Court on March 2024, notified the adoption of Practice Directions for proceedings (Criminal Appeals/Revisions or Criminal Petitions) filed under the POCSO Act in Gauhati High Court and the Outlying Benches. Under these Practice Directions, it became mandatory to implead the victim/guardian/support person, as the case may be. While impleading, the identity of the victim shall be properly screened strictly adhering to the mandate of Section 33(7) of POCSO Act and a formal notice of such impleading shall be issued to the victim/guardian/support person by the I.O. or the Officer-in-Charge.

Subsequently, the Collegium on 26-5-2025 recommended Justice Bishnoi’s elevation to the Supreme Court and in a display of speedy action i.e. in 3 days’ time, the Ministry of Law and Justice confirmed his elevation on 29-5-2025. The very next day, i.e., on 30-5-2025, Justice Vijay Bishnoi was sworn in as the Judge of Supreme Court of India along with two other Judges.

*Did you know? During his tenure as Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, Justice Vijay Bishnoi authored around 652 reported judgments.⁶

Important Judgments by Justice Vijay Bishnoi⁷

Justice Vijay Bishnoi is renowned for his commitment to upholding constitutional principles and ensuring procedural fairness. His notable judgments, including inclusivity in compassionate appointments and advocacy for modern crime-fighting techniques, underscore his dedication to justice and legal governance.

Section 4 RTI Act | Gauhati HC directs State to complete enrollment of Public Information Officers and other Departments on RTI portals

In a PIL filed regarding non-compliance of the State of Assam with the Supreme Court’s directions of establishing online portals for all High Courts, the Division Bench of Vijay Bishnoi, CJ*., and Unni Krishnan Nair, J., disposed of the petition, holding that more or less all the issues raised by the petitioner had been resolved. The Court also directed the State to complete the enrolment process of the Public Information Officers and other Departments and also make every endeavour to implement the mandate of Section 4 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI Act’). Read more

[Reetam Singh v. State of Assam, 2025 SCC OnLine Gau 1066]

Gauhati High Court directs Assam to survey & protect Ahom Dynasty historical monuments

In a suo motu public interest litigation (‘PIL’) registered by the Court due to a newspaper report regarding illegal activities being carried out by coal smugglers in the Tipam Hills area destroying the historic Tipam Hills, the Division Bench of Vijay Bishnoi, CJ., and Suman Shyam, J., disposed the PIL while directing the State to complete the archaeological exercise and protect the Ahom Dynasty historical monuments and continuously monitor the Tipam Hills for coal smugglers doing illegal mining. Read more

[X1 v. State of Assam, 2025 SCC OnLine Gau 374]

Gauhati HC takes suo motu cognizance of Umrangso Coal Mine Tragedy; directs filing of status report by State on actions taken against rat-hole mining

On 28-01-2025, the Division Bench of Vijay Bishnoi*, CJ., and Kaushik Goswami, J., took suo motu cognizance of the coal mine tragedy that took place in Umrangso, Dima Hasao, Assam and directed the State to file a status report on the actions taken by it for curbing rat hole mining in Assam by 07-02-2025. The Court took notice of various reports which suggested that more than 200 rat-hole mines were operating in the Umrangso area. The Court also noted that in the Karbi Anglong district, rat-hole mining was rampant, and it was either going unnoticed or the authorities were not taking any action to stop or close them despite having knowledge. Read more

[Dima Hasao Tragedy NA v. State of Assam, 2025 SCC OnLine Gau 221]

Gauhati HC asks DGP Assam to issue directions to police stations to not register cases under S.106(2) BNS 2023 as provision has not come into force yet

In a PIL filed before this Court, wherein petitioner challenged the validity of Section 106(2) of the Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS, 2023’), the Division Bench of Vijay Bishnoi*, CJ., and Kaushik Goswami, J., disposed of the PIL and stated that the Director General of Police, Assam (‘DGP, Assam’), should issue necessary directions to the police stations under his jurisdiction to not register any case under Section 106(2) of BNS, 2023, as the said provision had not come into force till date. Read more

[Ritumani Deka v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Gau 1997]

Thorough enquiry regarding monument’s antiquity and age required before declaring it as ‘ancient’: Gauhati HC

The present appeal was filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 24-03-2014 passed by the Single Judge in a case, whereby the prayer of petitioners for setting aside the impugned declaration of the Christian Cemetery in question as a Heritage site was rejected. The Division Bench of Vijay Bishnoi, CJ., and Kaushik Goswami*, J., opined that there was no record to show that any enquiry was conducted by the Superintendent as to the antiquity and age of the Cemetery and procedures as laid down under Section 3 of the Assam Ancient Monuments and Records Act, 1959 (‘the 1959 Act’) read with Rules 3 and 4 of the Assam Ancient Monuments and Record Rules, 1964 (‘the 1964 Rules’) were not undertaken by the State Government. The Court held that the impugned declaration of the Christian Cemetery by the jurisdictional District Magistrate was ultra vires, per-se illegal, null and void. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order dated 24-03-2014 passed by the Single Judge and the impugned orders dated 25-10-2005 and 27-11-2006 issued by the District Magistrate, Kamrup (M) were set aside. Read more

[Father Marcus Lakra Parishy Priest v. State of Assam, 2024 SCC OnLine Gau 1969]

‘Will impose heavy cost, initiate contempt proceedings’; Gauhati HC grants last two months opportunity to State of Mizoram to set up State Human Rights Commission

The present writ petition was filed by petitioner, Zofa Welfare Organization (‘ZWO’), Mizoram, praying to issue direction to the State of Mizoram to set up the State Human Rights Commission (‘SHRC’) as per the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (‘the 1993 Act’). The Division Bench of Vijay Bishnoi, CJ*., and Michael Zothankhuma, J., in the interest of justice, granted last opportunity of two months to the State of Mizoram to set up SHRC as per the provisions of the 1993 Act and as per the directions issued by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (2015) 8 SCC 744 (‘D.K. Basu Case’). Read more

[Zofa Welfare Organization (ZWO) v. State of Mizoram, 2024 SCC OnLine Gau 1509]

‘Departments not serious in solving water logging problem’; Gauhati HC imposes Rs 1000 cost and grants one more opportunity to file response

The Division Bench of Vijay Bishnoi, CJ., and Kardak Ete, J., after noting that till date no response had been filed on behalf of the Departments on the problem of water logging in the Guwahati city, granted one more opportunity, in the interest of justice, to the Departments to file their response with the condition that each Department shall pay a cost of Rs 1,000. Read more

[North East Eco Development Society v. State of Assam, 2024 SCC OnLine Gau 952]

Gauhati High Court declares Article 11, Schedule I of Court Fees Act, 1870 (Assam Amendment) ultra vires to Article 14 of Constitution

The present writ petitions were filed to challenge the constitutional validity of Article 11 of Schedule 1 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (Assam Amendment) brought into effect by the Assam Court Fees (Amendment) Act, 1950 in respect of levy of Court fee for grant of probate or letter of administration. The fee is imposed at the rate of 7% ad valorem (levied at a rate percent of value) where the value of properties exceeds Rs 5,00,000 without there being any upper fixed limit. The Division Bench of Vijay Bishnoi, CJ*., and N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J., declared the impugned article to be ultra vires and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Read more

[Prafulla Govinda Baruah v. State of Assam, 2024 SCC OnLine Gau 524]

Excluding married daughters from compassionate appointment violative of Art. 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution; Rajasthan High Court overrules judgments supporting exclusion

The present petition challenges the position of law prior to the amendment of Rule 2(c) of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996, which excludes the married daughter from the definition of ‘dependent’, for the purpose of compassionate appointment vide Notification dated 28-10-2021, a 3-Judge-Bench of Sandeep Mehta, Vijay Bishnoi and Arun Bhansali, JJ. held that the provision of Rule 2(c) of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996, which exclude the married daughter from definition of dependent prior to its amendment vide notification dated 28.10.2021, is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India and as such, the word ‘unmarried’ from the definition of ‘dependent’, is struck down. Further, in Rule 5 of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 also the word unmarried daughters/adopted unmarried daughter, shall be read as daughters/adopted daughter. Read more..

[Priyanka Shrimali v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 SCC OnLine Raj 1479]

Entitlement of ITC after cancellation of GST registration can be considered during revocation: Rajasthan High Court

The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Appellate Authority, Commercial Tax, Jodhpur wherein the GST registration of the firm (Petitioner) was cancelled on the ground of non-filing of GST return. While exercising its civil writ jurisdiction, the division bench of Vijay Bishnoi and Praveer Bhatnagar J.J. held that the assessee was entitled to lodge an Income Tax Claim when the department considered the issue of revocation of GST registration cancellation. Read more..

[R.K. Jewelers v Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Raj 737]

Rajasthan High Court | No appeal can be preferred challenging the issuance of an arms license in favour of any person under S. 18 Arms Act, 1959

Vijay Bishnoi, J. held the appeal filed by District Magistrate before Divisional Commissioner under Section 18 of Arms Act, 1959 challenging the issuance of arms license in favour of the petitioner who was the holder of license, as non — maintainable. Read more..

[Ramesh Chandra Patel v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 SCC OnLine Raj 1209]

Rajasthan High Court | Court allows compromise entered by parties since offences under NI Act are compoundable offences

Vijay Bishnoi, J., allowed a criminal revision petition seeking to set aside judgments convicting the petitioner about offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Read more..

[Jasmel Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2020 SCC OnLine Raj 334]

Rajasthan High Court | Representative sample of seized contraband can be drawn out only after contents of each package have been subjected to colour test by U.N. drug testing kit

Vijay Bishnoi J. allowed bail application filed by persons who were arrested for illegal possession of poppy straw; on the ground that the seizing officers did not follow the guidelines issued by Narcotics Control Bureau in regard of seizure, sampling and testing of the contraband. Read more..

[Om Praksh Bishnoi v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 1280]

In the light of securing all persons from crime, Rajasthan High Court directs for the recording of voice samples of accused

A Single Judge Bench comprising of Vijay Bishnoi J., while allowing to take the voice sample of the accused pronounced that “when the criminals are using the modern technologies to commit the crime, it is not justified to restrain the police or investigating agency to counter it”. Read more..

[State of Rajasthan v. Vikramjeet Singh, 2018 SCC OnLine Raj 1343]

Rajasthan High Court | No separate category for physically handicapped in reservation

Dismissing a petition, a division bench comprising of Amitava Roy, CJ and Vijay Bishnoi, J concluded that there should be no separate category of the physically handicapped persons for the purpose of reservation. Read more..

[Vikram Singh Chouhan v. State of Rajasthan, 2014 SCC OnLine Raj 1277]

Rajasthan High Court limits bonus marks to 15% experience weightage, preserving meritocracy in recruitment

Rajasthan High Court: A petition was filed challenging the second proviso to Rule 273 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Rules, 2013 stating that the grant of bonus marks against the experience is an “unconstitutional action of the State while making direct recruitment to the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Service. A division bench of Govind Mathur and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ., held that the respondents did not commit any wrong while extending weightage in the form of bonus marks against the service experience as per proviso to Rule 23 of the Rules of 1998 and such grant of weightage in no manner is in contravention of law. However, it clarified that the grant of bonus marks to the extent of 30 marks is unjust, arbitrary and unfair, hence, was declared illegal and quashed and the State Government may grant the weightage in the form of bonus marks against service experience within the cap of 15 marks.

[Archana v State of Rajasthan, 2013 SCC OnLine Raj 2759]

Rajasthan High Court upholds provisions of Rajasthan Agriculture Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974; Directs Bank to determine interest on Loan

Rajasthan High Court: A petition was filed by the petitioner for consideration that whether declaring Sections 13 and 14 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 unconstitutional will be violative of Articles 14 and 21. A division bench of Amitava Roy, CJ., and Vijay Bishnoi, J., held that the challenge of the petitioner to the provisions of the Act of 1974 particularly to sections 13 and 14 fails and to that extent, the writ petition was dismissed.

[Harwinder Kaur v State Bank of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Raj 6503]

Rajasthan High Court dismisses petition challenging delimitation process in Nagar Palika Nokha

A petition was filed challenging the delimitation of wards in Nagar Palika Nokha, along with the consequential voters list, on the grounds of non-compliance with statutory provisions and guidelines. A division bench of Sunil Ambwani and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ., held that the petitioner’s failure to file objections during the stipulated period, coupled with the constitutional bar on judicial interference in electoral matters as per Article 243ZG, warranted dismissal of the petition warranting no interference.

[Kanhaiya Lal Jhanwar v State of Rajasthan, 2015 SCC OnLine Raj 8631]