Know Thy Judge | From Student Union to the Supreme Court: Justice Aravind Kumar’s dynamic journey & important judgments

Appointed to the Supreme Court in 2023, Justice Aravind Kumar was born on 14-07-1962 in Karnataka. He did his schooling at Bengaluru (then Bangalore) and continued his further studies from National College. Justice Aravind Kumar obtained his Law degree from Bangalore University¹.

Advocacy

Did you Know? During his college days, Justice Aravind Kumar was active as Students Union Leader and was the Vice President of Bangalore University Students Action Committee².

Justice Aravind Kumar enrolled in 1987 as an Advocate. He appeared in Civil Courts, Magistrate Courts, and Appellate Tribunals for about 4 years before shifting practice to the High Courts. He was later appointed as Additional Central Government Standing Counsel at High Court of Karnataka in 1999 and as Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department for 11 years³.

Justice Kumar was also appointed as Member of Regional Direct Taxes Advisory Committee in the year 2002. Justice Aravind Kumar was also appointed as the Assistant Solicitor General of India in the year 2005.⁴

Justice Aravind Kumar was one of the founder member and Vice-President of Lahari Advocates Forum, an organization promoted by distinguished Senior Advocates for promoting Legal Education, training young advocates, conducting workshops on various subjects for Advocates, conducting orientation courses to young Advocates seeking appointment as judicial officers. Justice Aravind Kumar acted as a legal advisor to various statutory corporations and companies and had also been appointed as Special Public Prosecutor for the Central Bureau of Investigation till his elevation as Judge of Karnataka High Court.⁵

Judgeship of the High Court

Justice Aravind Kumar was elevated as Additional Judge of Karnataka High Court on 26-06-2009 and later as Permanent Judge on 07-12-2012⁶.

After serving Karnataka High Court as a Judge for 9 years, Justice Aravind Kumar was appointed as Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court on 13-10-2021⁷.

Notable Initiatives taken by Justice Aravind Kumar during his time in the High Courts

• During his judgeship in Karnataka High Court, Justice Aravind Kumar along with the then Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, Abhay S. Oka took significant steps to tackle Covid-19 pandemic in 2021. Chief Justice Oka and Justice Kumar issued several directions to ensure that labs provide COVID results within 24 hours; and that those who have died due to Covid-19 are given dignified burial/ cremation. The Judges also issued directions to address Covid vaccine scarcity and issues related to food security. Furthermore, Chief Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Aravind Kumar directed the State Government to ensure availability of oxygen cylinders and medicines effective in treatment of mucormycosis.
• During his 1.4-year tenure as Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court, Justice Aravind Kumar initiated the creation of ‘Signal Schools’. These schools were launched jointly by the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority (GSLSA) and Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to provide basic educational facilities to children engaged in begging jobs, with buses converted into classrooms and stationed near traffic signals⁸.
• As Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court, Justice Aravind Kumar was committed to tackle the issue of pending cases; therefore, he set up “justice clocks” in each courtroom to track case pendency and displayed them on the Gujarat High Court’s website. During his tenure, the quarterly rate of clearance of cases remained above 85%.⁹
• As Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court and patron-in-chief of GSLSA, Justice Aravind Kumar also conducted Lok Adalats to resolve cases pertaining to traffic challans, electricity and water bills, labour disputes and service matters related to pay, allowances and retiral benefits.

• As Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court, Justice Aravind Kumar also initiated the live streaming of District Courts on pilot basis¹⁰.

Elevation to the Supreme Court

Taking into account Justice Aravind Kumar’s seniority, merit, performance and integrity; the Supreme Court Collegium recommended his elevation as Judge of Supreme Court of India.

The recommendation was accepted by the Law Ministry and Justice Aravind Kumar’s elevation was confirmed via notification dated 10-02-2023 and finally on 13-02-2023, Justice Aravind Kumar took oath of office as Judge of the Supreme Court of India. He is due to retire on 13-07-2027.¹¹

Notable Supreme Court Judgments

Supreme Court issues notice in challenge to Punjab & Haryana High Court’s decision on EWS reservation in PPSC Agriculture Development Officer recruitment

In Harpreet Singh v. Sikandar Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 769, filed against the judgment passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court concerning Economically Weaker Section (‘EWS’) reservation in Punjab Public Service Commission (‘PPSC’) recruitment for Agriculture Development Officer, a division bench of J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar, JJ. issued notice, with a returnable period of 6 weeks. Read more

Supreme Court orders Uttarakhand Govt. to pay Rs. 1 crore to family of doctor killed on duty after 9 years of legal battle

In State of Uttarakhand v. Sarita Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 640, concerning the non-compliance of the proposal to pay Rs 50 lakhs compensation to the family of a government doctor, who was tragically shot dead while working at a Community Health Centre in April 2016, the division bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar held that, in light of the gravity of the incident, the sanction for compensation must be honored, and the amount should be paid along with interest. The total amount, including interest for approximately nine years, was quantified at Rs. 1 crore. Out of this, Rs. 11 lakhs had already been paid. The Court directed that the remaining Rs. 89 lakhs be paid within six weeks, and compliance with this order must be reported to the Registry on affidavit by the next date of listing. Read more

Road Accident | SC grants interim bail to accused due to his father’s compassionate endeavour towards victim’s orphaned minors

While considering Jay Chandrahas Gharat v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 498, wherein the appellant sought bail for the offences registered under Sections 201, 279, 304, 304(2), 338, 353, 504 of the Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 134(A), 134(B) and 184 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988; the Division Bench of J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar, JJ., granted interim bail to the accused for period of 3 months after taking note of the peculiar facts of the case and the endeavour of the accused person’s father for taking steps towards restorative justice, by which he has shown his concern to maintain the minor children after the demise of their parents on account of the road traffic accident caused by his son. Read more

From Death Row to Life: Supreme Court commutes sentence of man convicted for Sexual assault and murder of 4-year-old boy

In Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar v. State of Gujarat, (2025) 2 SCC 399, filed by the appellant (convict) convicted for the offences of kidnapping, sexual assault and murder of a four-year-old child, the three Judge bench of B.R. Gavai, Aravind Kumar and K. V. Viswanathan*, JJ. while maintaining the conviction under Sections 302, 364, 377 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections 4 and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’), set aside the sentence of death for the offence under Section 302 and substitute the same with that of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 25 years without remission. Further, the Court ordered that the sentence imposed for offences under Section 364 IPC (10 years S.I. and Rs. 10,000/- fine) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act (life imprisonment and Rs.10,000/- fine) to run concurrently with the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 25 years without remission. Read more

SC restores bail granted to BJP’s Girraj Singh Malinga in 2022 for offences under IPC and SC/ST Act

In Girraj Singh Malinga v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3817, while considering the instant appeal filed by BJP leader Girraj Singh Malinga against cancellation of his bail granted for offences punishable under provisions of the Penal Code, 1860 and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; the Division Bench of M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar, JJ., restored the earlier bail order granted by Rajasthan High Court, taking into note that the appellant has already surrendered. The Court directed the appellant’s release on the very same terms and conditions based on which he was granted bail. Read more

Supreme Court commutes death sentence of father convicted for murdering his pregnant daughter over inter-caste marriage

While considering Eknath Kisan Kumbharkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2879, challenging Bombay High Court’s decision confirming death sentence to the appellant for murdering his pregnant daughter, the Division Bench of Aravind Kumar* and KV Viswanathan, JJ., took note of the appellant’s lack of criminal antecedents, presence of mitigating factors, medical reports and satisfactory behaviour with the prison inmates and opined that even though the crime committed by the appellant is unquestionably grave and unpardonable, it is not appropriate to affirm the death sentence that was awarded to him. Hence the Court was in favour of converting the death penalty to fixed sentence during which period the appellant would not be entitled to apply for remission. Thus, the Court confirmed the appellant’s conviction, but death penalty imposed under Section 302, IPC, was converted to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission. Read more

Improper for Court to grant interim relief in routine situations when a party has been directed to seek relief from High Court: Supreme Court

In Gagan Banga v. State of W.B., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2608, filed by Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited (‘Indiabulls’) praying to lay down appropriate guidelines to be followed by all including the police officials and Judicial Magistrate to desist from initiating or directing initiation of criminal proceedings against the financial institutions, its assignees, management, officers, employees, lawful transferees and purchasers of secured assets at the behest of defaulting borrowers, so as to protect their fundamental rights inter alia guaranteed under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950, and also prayed for quashing the FIRs, the division bench of Sanjay Kumar and Aravind Kumar, JJ. said that when a party is relegated to the High Court to pursue its remedies, it would not be proper, in the normal course, to bind the said High Court with directions in relation to the proceedings to be impugned before such Court. Thus, when the Supreme Court refuses to entertain a matter and asks the party to approach the High Court, it would be improper to grant interim relief to such party. The Court also noted that such directions can be misconstrued by the High Courts to be observations by this Court on the merits of the matter, thereby influencing the adjudication of the case. Read more

Cause, not length of delay to be examined while considering condonation pleas: Supreme Court

While considering the instant appeal titled Mool Chandra v. Union of India, (2025) 1 SCC 625 revolving around application for condonation of delay of 425 days, the Division Bench of Aravind Kumar* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., stated that it is not the length of delay that would be required to be considered while examining the plea for condonation of delay, it is the cause for delay which has been propounded will have to be examined. If the cause for delay would fall within the four corners of “sufficient cause”, irrespective of the length of delay same deserves to be condoned. However, if the cause shown is insufficient, irrespective of the period of delay, same would not be condoned. Read more

SC calls for performance audit of Maharashtra Slum Areas Act; Emphasises on review of implementation of Statute to ensure Rule of Law

In Yash Developers v. Harihar Krupa Coop. Housing Society Ltd., (2024) 9 SCC 606, which was an appeal against a decision of the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee and the Bombay High Court, upholding the terminating the development agreement was made in exercise of power under Section 13 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, the Division Bench of PS Narasimha and Aravind Kumar, JJ. dismissed the appeal for being devoid of merits and upheld the impugned decisions. The Court requested the Chief Justice of the High Court to constitute a Bench to undertake the comprehensive statutory audit of the Act. Read more

Display boards/Signboards | SC clarifies the definition of ‘advertisement’ and the law on requirements of levy of tax on advertisements

The Division Bench of S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar*, JJ., in Harsh Automobiles (P) Ltd. v. Indore Municipal Corpn., (2024) 2 SCC 485, held that by mere mentioning the name of the product in which the business establishment is being run would not partake the character of the advertisement until and unless by such display customers are solicited. In the absence of the display of the name board or signboard either by a business establishment or any other establishment including public offices and professionals or schools or colleges, etc. it would drive the potential customer to such a situation where it would be neigh impossible to identify the business establishment from which the potential customer proposes to buy. However, if the signboards so displayed would in any manner promote a particular product or goods or services or in other words it would attract customers to purchase a particular brand of product or goods or services and such display provides information about the product/services and solicit the customers, it may amount to advertisement while the latter would only be an information to the public.

Supreme Court directs HCs and DGPs of all States to ensure Arnesh Kumar guidelines are issued to lower courts and police authorities to prevent unnecessary arrests

The division bench of S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar in Mohd. Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand, (2023) 8 SCC 632, while setting aside the impugned order, directed all the courts to strictly follow the law laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 469 and further reiterated the directions contained thereunder. Further, it directed the High Court to frame these directions in the form of notifications and guidelines to be followed by the Sessions Courts and all other Criminal Courts dealing with various offences. Read more

Compulsory acquisition of private property: Supreme Court outlines seven sub-rights of Constitutional Right to Property

In Kolkata Municipal Corpn. v. Bimal Kumar Shah, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 968, filed by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (‘Corporation’) against the Calcutta High Court Judgment, wherein the Court held that there is no power of compulsory acquisition of immovable property under Section 352 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (‘the Act’), the division bench of PS Narasimha and Aravind Kumar, JJ. has upheld the impugned Judgment. Further, while interpreting “authority of law” in Article 300-A of the Constitution, the Bench has held that a minimum content of a constitutional right to property comprises of seven sub-rights or procedures such as the right to notice, hearing, reasons for the decision, to acquire only for public purpose, fair compensation, efficient conduct of the procedure within timelines and finally the conclusion. These sub-rights have synchronously formed part of our laws and have attained judicial recognition. Therefore, as Section 352 does not provide for these sub-rights or procedures, it can never be a valid power of acquisition. Further, the Bench held that Section 352 is only intended to enable the Municipal Commissioner to decide whether a land is to be acquired for public purpose. The power of acquisition is in fact vested with the State under Section 537 and it will exercise it, in its own discretion, whenever the Municipal Commissioner makes an application to that effect. Read more

Subordinate legislation ultra vires to Parent Act? Supreme Court summarises principles for deciding cases

In Naresh Chandra Agrawal v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 114, which was an appeal filed against the Delhi High Court’s decision, wherein the appellant’s challenge to Rule 9(3)(b) of the Chartered Accountants’ (Procedure of Investigation of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007 as ultra vires of Section 21A (4) of the Chartered Accountants, 1949, the Division Bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Aravind Kumar*, JJ. summarised legal principles relevant in adjudicating cases where subordinate legislation is challenged on the ground of being ‘ultra vires’ to the Parent Act. Read more

Supreme Court illuminates on bail under Section 43D (5) of UAPA against general rule of CrPC

In Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2024) 5 SCC 403, challenging order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 24-04-2023 upholding the rejection of application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for a matter involving offences under Sections 124-A, 153-A, 153-B, 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), Sections 17, 18, 19 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UAPA’) and Sections 25 and 54 of Arms Act, 1959, the Division Bench of M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar*, JJ. refused to grant bail while explaining the rule against bail delineating provisions under UAPA as against general rule under CrPC. Read more

Consumer Dispute| ‘Eggshell Skull rule’ to be applied in Medical Negligence Cases of victims with pre-existing vulnerability or medical condition: Supreme Court

In Jyoti Devi v. Suket Hospital, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 581, which was an appeal regarding medical negligence filed by the appellant for enhancement of compensation, the division bench of Sanjay Karol* and Aravind Kumar, JJ. while setting aside the impugned orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘NCDRC’) and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘State Commission’), directed the Hospital to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs accompanied by interest at 9% from the date of the award passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (‘District Forum’) to the appellant, within a period of four weeks from the date of this judgment. The Court also imposed a cost of Rs.50,000/- in litigation cost. Read more

Identification of private forests in Goa| ‘No uniform criteria due to distinctive geographical features’; SC holds existing criteria valid

In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2024) 3 SCC 438, challenging National Green Tribunal’s common order, wherein Goa Foundation’s (‘appellant’) application was dismissed on the ground that the issue of determination of criteria for the identification of ‘forest’ formed part of the proceedings in In Re: TN Godavarman Thirumulpad, the three Judge Bench of B.R Gavai, Aravind Kumar* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. dismissed the appeal and upheld the impugned Order. Read more

Explained | Supreme Court verdict on principles relating to presumption and evidential burden under Ss. 138 & 139 of NI Act

In an appeal titled Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh, (2023) 10 SCC 148, that was filed against the Judgment and order of Punjab and Haryana High Court, wherein the Court upheld the acquittal order of the Trial Court concerning an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘NI Act’), the division bench of Aravind Kumar and SVN Bhatti, JJ. while setting aside the impugned judgment, allowed the complaint filed under Section 138 NI Act and convicted the accused with fine of twice the amount of the cheque (Rs.13,90,408/-) failing which he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Read more

What is the ambit of “Commercial Purpose” defined under Consumer Protection Act?: Supreme Court answers

In an appeal titled Rohit Chaudhary v. Vipul Ltd., (2024) 1 SCC 8, against the order passed by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (‘NCDRC’), wherein the commission held that the commercial space booked by the complainants was for earning profit and not for the purpose of earning a livelihood by self-employment. Thus, the appellants are not consumers as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, the division bench of S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar*, JJ. while setting aside the impugned order, said that the expression ‘for any commercial purpose’ must be understood as covering cases other than those of resale of the goods. The persons buying goods either for resale or for use in large-scale profit-making activity will not be consumers entitled to protection under the Act. However, if commercial use is by purchasers for earning livelihood by self-employment, they will be considered as consumers. Thus, it directed the respondent to refund a sum of Rs.51,10,117/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of complaint till date of payment with litigation cost of Rs. 1 lakh to the appellant. Read more

Adherence to Article 14 by State must even while acting in Contractual Realm: Supreme Court

In Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. T.N. Electricity Board, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 7839, the three Judge Bench of B.R. Gavai, Sanjay Karol* and Aravind Kumar, JJ., said that the State must abide by Article 14 of the Constitution of India even if its action was in the contractual realm. Read more

“Voting by secret ballot should not be the rule but clearly an exception”; Supreme Court modifies guidelines for designation of Senior Advocates

In the case titled Indira Jaising v Supreme Court of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 614, filed by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising against the existing system of designation of Senior Advocates, terming it flawed as it was not objective, fair, and transparent, and thus did not take into account considerations of merit and ability, the 3-Judge Bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul*, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Aravind Kumar, JJ. has fine-tuned the guidelines laid down in Supreme Court’s 2017 Judgment¹², to bring in greater transparency and objectivity in the designation process. Read more

Courts cannot prescribe qualification or declare equivalency of a course, unless the rule itself prescribes equivalency

In Unnikrishnan CV v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 343, wherein the appellants were claiming promotion to the post of Superintendent BR Grade-I and Assistant Engineer as per Column 11 of the General Reserve Engineer Force Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ Recruitment Rules, 1982 (‘GREF Rules, 1982), the Full Bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Manoj Misra and Aravind Kumar*, JJ. while rejecting the appeal, reiterated that Courts cannot prescribe the qualification and/or declare the equivalency of a course, until and unless the rule itself prescribes the equivalency. Read more

Notable High Court Judgments

Gujarat High Court | Delay in appointment of presiding officer of DRT leading to deprivation of legitimate right to speedy justice

The Division Bench of Aravind Kumar, CJ. and Ashutosh J. Shastri, J., in Nipun Praveen Singhvi v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Guj 828, allowed a writ petition which was filed seeking for a direction to fill up the post of Presiding Officer in Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Ahmedabad contending inter-alia such vacancy violates the legal rights of the petitioner, bankers/lenders, borrowers, guarantors and other stake holders. Read More

Gujarat High Court | Show cause notice issued to 9 Judicial officers for disobeying the order of the High Court and not disposing of the case pending since 1977

While deciding the application, the division bench of Aravind Kumar, CJ., and Ashutosh J. Shastri, J., in Patel Ambalal Kalidas v. Patel Motibhai Kalidas¹¹, called upon the Judicial Officers to show cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for wilfully disobeying the order and direction issued by this Court. Read More

Gujarat High Court | Notice for appointment of arbitrator cannot be rejected on ground of vague material particulars

While deciding the instant petition, Aravind Kumar, C.J., in Hemlata Jain v. Padmavati Analkumar Mishra, 2022 SCC OnLine Guj 1787, said that the prayer for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2016 cannot be rejected on the ground that it is vague or bereft of the material particulars as Section 21 of the A&C Act does not remotely suggests that the nature of dispute has to be enumerated or explained in the notice invoking the arbitration clause. Read More

Karnataka HC | No bar for claiming maintenance under S. 24 Hindu Marriage Act, even in the event of application under S. 125 CrPC having been filed

While passing the order in a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, a Single Judge Bench comprising of Aravind Kumar, J., in Sunita Motwani v. Amitabh Sinha¹², held that the contention of the respondent that the present application for maintenance was not maintainable on account of the petitioner having already filed an application under S. 125 CrPC could not be accepted. Read More

Karnataka HC | Yipee Magic Masala Noodles and Wai Wai Majedaar Masala Noodles copyright infringement battle

A Division Bench of Aravind Kumar and Pradeep Kumar Yerur, JJ., in ITC Ltd. v. CG Foods (India) (P) Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 14700, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order dated 22-06-2021 passed in O.S.No.177/2021 by LXXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-85) (Commercial Court), Bengaluru. The Court observed that while deciding the question of copyright infringement it is not necessary that the defendants work must be an exact reproduction of the plaintiff’s work. What is essential is to see whether there is a reproduction of the substantial part of the plaintiff’s work. Read More

Karnataka HC | Persons with disabilities are entitled to priority in medical treatment in light of S. 25 of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

A Division Bench of Abhay S Oka, CJ and Aravind Kumar, J., in Mohd. Arif Jameel v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 15714, gave a slew of directions regarding vaccine allocation. The Court took stock of the various aspect related to COVID vaccination in the State. Read More