On 17-3-2025, the Supreme Court Bench inducted Justice Jomalya Bagchi, who started his legal career in the 1990s from Calcutta High Court. Adept both in law and academics, Justice Bagchi stood up for human and civil liberties and clemency in death penalty matters during his tenure as an advocate. As a Judge, Justice Bagchi furthered his humanitarian philosophy via his judgments. In order to better understand Justice Bagchi’s trajectory, we have thus, curated his important career milestones and notable High Court and Supreme Court decisions.
Early Life and Education1
Justice Joymalya Bagchi was born on 3-10-1966 and was educated at Calcutta Boys’ School. Showing interest in law Justice Bagchi ventured to Calcutta University and enrolled himself in the University’s 5-year LL. B course, wherein he performed remarkably by attaining first position in all LL. B examinations.
Career as an Advocate2
After completion of his graduation in law in 1991, Justice Bagchi enrolled as an Advocate with the West Bengal Bar Association in the same year in November and commenced his practice from Calcutta High Court.
Justice Bagchi’s legal practice extended to the major fields in law such as Constitution, Civil and Criminal. Throughout his career, Justice Bagchi handled several significant cases in criminal and constitutional law, including death sentence and clemency matters, appearing before the Calcutta High Court, other High Courts, and the Supreme Court of India.
*Did You Know? Justice Joymalya Bagchi successfully argued before a Special Bench of the Calcutta High Court against the West Bengal government’s ban on the book ‘Dwikhondito’, authored by Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen3.
Furthermore, Justice Joymalya Bagchi actively engaged in public interest litigations; represented human rights organisations; advocated for civil liberties and environmental protection. His legal expertise led to his empanelment as an advocate for the Union of India, the State of West Bengal, and various corporations, including Kolkata Municipal Corporation, Kolkata Port Trust, and Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation.
Academic Pursuits4
Justice Joymalya Bagchi not only devoted his time in fighting cases before the Courts but he was also active in imparting his knowledge and experience to the students via several guest lectures etc.
-
Justice Bagchi was a part time lecturer in Calcutta University’s Law Department and Jogesh Chandra Choudhury College of Law.
-
Justice Bagchi was a guest lecturer at the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS)
-
He was a guest speaker in a UGC sponsored refresher course on ‘Human Rights in India’ organised at Jadhavpur University and Charu Chandra College, Kolkata.
-
Justice Bagchi also wrote several articles on many legal issues that were published in various reputed journals.
Career as a Judge5
Justice Joymalya Bagchi was appointed as a Judge of the High Court at Calcutta on 27-6-2011 and transferred to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 4-1-2021. He was repatriated to the High Court at Calcutta on 8-11-2021.
The Supreme Court Collegium on taking into account Justice Bagchi’s 13-year tenure as a High Court Judge and carefully evaluating his merit, integrity and competence and accommodating a plurality of considerations, deemed it fit to recommend his name for appointment as Judge of Supreme Court. Emphasising on representation, the Collegium also considered the fact that at present, the Bench of the Supreme Court is represented by only one Judge from the High Court at Calcutta.
*Did You Know? At the time of recommendation by the Collegium, Justice Joymalya Bagchi stood at Sl. No. 11 in the combined All-India seniority of High Court Judges, including Chief Justices.
Justice Bagchi’s appointment was later confirmed by the Ministry of Law and Justice on 10-3-2025 and he was sworn-in as Supreme Court Judge on 17-3-2025.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi will also be in line to become the Chief Justice of India in May 2031 till his retirement in 2-10-2031.
*Did You Know? Justice Joymalya Bagchi will be the 2nd Chief Justice of India from Calcutta High Court after late Justice Altamas Kabir who was CJI from 2012 to 2013.6
Notable Judgments
Supreme Court
In an appeal filed by an advocate against the order of the Bar Council of India, wherein the appellant was found guilty of professional misconduct and was imposed a punishment of three years’ suspension from the roll of advocates maintained by the State Bar Council, the Division Bench of Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., taking note of the serious misconduct committed by the appellant, particularly his repeated and scandalous allegations against the respondent-complainant, the Court refused to take a lenient view. The appeal was dismissed with a cost of ₹1 lakh. [Manoj Kumar Sharma v. Priyanka Bansal, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2076]
While considering the petitions and applications pertaining to the management and development of the Thakur Shree Bankey Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple at Vrindavan, Mathura in Uttar Pradesh, the Division Bench of Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., directed the establishment of a High-Powered Temple Management Committee (“the Committee”) under the Chairmanship of Justice Ashok Kumar, Former Judge, Allahabad High Court, to oversee and supervise the day-to-day functioning inside and outside of the Bankey Bihari Temple, subject to the ultimate outcome of the proceedings before the Allahabad High Court. The Court further modified the order passed by the coordinate Bench of the Court in Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1135, vis-a-vis directions issued for Bankey Bihari Temple, thereby restoring the legal position to status quo ante. [Management Committee of Thakur Shree Bankey Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1666]
In a criminal appeal filed against the judgment passed by Andhra Pradesh High Court, whereby the High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings under Section 420 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) against the Chairman of JVRR Education Society, who was accused of using a forged fire safety No Objection Certificate (‘NOC’), to obtain recognition for his college, the division bench of B.V. Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ. held that the essential ingredients of the offences of cheating and forgery were not satisfied, as per the facts of the case. Referring to the National Building Code, 2016, the Court noted that no fire safety NOC was required for educational institutions operating from buildings below 15 metres in height. Since the accused’s building stood at 14.20 metres, the Court found no material to establish the requisite mens rea or wrongful gain/loss necessary to constitute the offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, or 471 IPC. [Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy v. State of A.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1950]
While considering the instant appeal challenging the impugned judgments whereby the respondents who had applied as reserved candidates in OBC category after having availed age relaxation for the post of Constable (GD) were directed to be considered for recruitment under unreserved category; the Division Bench of Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., held that where there is no embargo in the recruitment rules/employment notification, such reserved candidates who have scored higher than the last selected unreserved candidate shall be entitled to migrate and be recruited against unreserved seats. However, if an embargo is imposed under relevant recruitment rules, such reserved candidates shall not be permitted to migrate to general category seats. [Union of India v. Sajib Roy, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1943]
Inside Supreme Court’s verdict approving the Draft Constitution of All India Football Federation
While considering this appeal concerning Constitution of the All India Football Federation (AIFF), the Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., approved the provisions of the Draft Constitution and directed the AIFF administration to call for a special general body meeting and adopt the draft Constitution with the modifications made in the judgment. It was directed to be done at the earliest, preferably within 4 weeks. “We are of the firm opinion that the Constitution, once adopted in terms of Article 84, will mark a new beginning for Indian football and take the sport to greater heights”. [All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2020]
While considering these appeals concerning the pay parity of the contractually appointed Assistant Professors, the Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., allowed the appeals and by applying the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, asked the State to rationalise their pay structure and directed that the contractual Assistant Professors be paid minimum of the scale payable to Assistant Professors. The Court said that academicians, lecturers and professors are the intellectual backbone of any nation, as they dedicate their lives to shaping the minds and character of future generations. Their work goes far beyond delivering lessons. However, in many contexts, the compensation and recognition extended to them do not truly reflect the significance of their contribution. “It is just not enough to keep reciting Gurubramha Gururvishnu Gurdevo Maheshwarah at public functions. If we believe in this declaration, it must be reflected in the way the nation treats its teachers”. [Shah Samir Bharatbhai v. State of Gujarat, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1788]
In a batch of petitions filed by opposition party leaders and several NGOs, challenging the Election Commission of India (‘ECI’) directive dated 24-06-2025, which ordered a Special Intensive Revision of the electoral rolls in Bihar., the Division Bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ. urged the ECI to consider allowing Aadhaar, ration cards, and Electoral Photo Identity Cards (‘EPICs’) as admissible documents for proving voter identity during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls being undertaken in Bihar ahead of the Assembly elections in November 2025. [Assn. for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1408]
While considering the instant appeal revolving around the validity of a restrictive covenant in the appointment letter issued by Vijaya Bank, whereby an indemnity bond of Rs 2 Lakh was required to be furnished in case respondent resigns prematurely; the Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., upheld the validity of the restrictive clause stating that it does not amount to restraint of trade nor is it opposed to public policy. The Court opined that Vijaya Bank is a public sector undertaking and cannot resort to private or ad-hoc appointments through private contracts. An untimely resignation would require the Bank to undertake a prolix and expensive recruitment process involving open advertisement, fair competitive procedure lest the appointment falls foul of the constitutional mandate under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. [Vijaya Bank v. Prashant B. Narnaware, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1107]
In an appeal filed by anti-trafficking activists challenging a cryptic order passed by the Allahabad High Court, which had refused to quash the criminal case against them for offences under Sections 186 and 353 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the division bench of PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., quashed the criminal charges. The Court held that the uncontroverted allegations in the chargesheet did not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC. Regarding Section 186 IPC, the Court emphasized that for an offence to be made out under this section, obstruction must be accompanied by the requisite mens rea, meaning the intention to prevent a public servant from discharging his official duties. The Court found that the appellants’ actions were not intended to impede the interrogation but to ensure that it was conducted in a more effective and secure environment. This factual context negated the existence of the mens rea, or intention, to obstruct official duty, leading the Court to quash the charges. [Umashankar Yadav v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1066]
While considering the instant appeal wherein the question arose that whether the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution reject a plaint? The Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., held that essence of the power under Article 227 being supervisory, neither it can be invoked to usurp the original jurisdiction of the court which it seeks to supervise, nor can it be invoked to supplant a statutory legal remedy under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Illustrating with an example, the Court pointed out that existence of appellate remedy under Section 96 of the CPC operates as a near total bar to exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. [K. Valarmathi v. Kumaresan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 985]
High Court
In a case involving multiple appeals and death references against a judgment and order passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge where the appellants are convicted for heinous crimes of rape and murder committed against the victim, a division bench comprising of Ajay Kumar Gupta and Joymalya Bagchi,* JJ., held that the State had failed to prove the conspiracy and shared common intention of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, and the death penalty was unwarranted. The Court also stated that, “Alternative punishment of life imprisonment for the remainder of natural life is a more humane substitute that adequately addresses societal concerns of recidivism.” [State of W.B. v. Saiful Ali, 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 3411]
While deciding an appeal against the conviction for rape and murder of a minor girl child, a Division bench comprising of Gaurang Kanth and Joymalya Bagchi,* JJ., held that despite the heinousness of the crime, the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the appellants over their nearly two-decade incarceration outweighed the grounds for imposing the death penalty. The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court and set off the period of detention served by the appellants during investigation, inquiry, and trial against their substantive sentences. “Mere reference to gravity or heinousness of the crime is not enough. The Court prior to imposing death penalty must satisfy its conscience that there is no possibility of rehabilitation and reformation of the convict and he would remain a continuing threat to society.” [Samsuddin Sk. v. State of W.B., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2667]
The present case arises from concerns regarding the transmission of Trial Court records to the High Court, particularly the delays and irregularities observed in their dispatch. A division bench of Subhendu Samanta and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., issued practise directions to address the delays and irregularities in the transmission of Trial Court Records to High Court. The Court, upon perusal of the report on this issue, noted significant discrepancies in the Trial Court records that had been transmitted. Consequently, the Court directed that the records be sent back to the Trial Court for necessary corrections, which were to be completed within a fortnight before retransmission. As the existing procedural rules did not prescribe any specific time frame for the dispatch of Trial Court records to the High Court, nor did they set deadlines for rectification of errors in the records or preparation of paper books upon receipt. [In re Putul Ghosh, 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 1244]
The instant petition which was taken up by the Court on its own motion due to the increasing pressure on existing forensic laboratories to handle the growing volume of DNA and forensic analyses required by the imminent enforcement of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) from 01-07-2024, which mandates forensic examination in serious criminal cases, highlighting the need to enhance forensic capabilities and resources by recognizing the National Institute of Bio Medical Generics (NIBMG) and its scientists as ‘Government Scientific Experts’ under the Code of Criminal Procedure. A division bench of Joymalya Bagchi and Gaurang Kanth, JJ., directed Union of India to take necessary steps in notifying National Institute of Bio Medical Generics (NIBMG) as a Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) and the Government scientists attached to it as ‘Government Scientific Experts’ under Section 293(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 329(4) BNSS) to undertake DNA and other forensic examinations of samples for effective implementation of the legislative intent of the new procedural law with regard to use of forensic tools in investigation. [Court on its motion v. State, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 6610]
[Ekbalpore Violence] Calcutta High Court orders SIT to probe in the Kolkata communal violence
While deciding a petition related to Ekbalpore — Mominpur communal violence on the eve of Laxmi Puja, the Division Bench comprising of Apurba Sinha Ray and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., ordered the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) of experienced police officers to probe into the unfortunate incident in the city of Kolkata. In the present case, two petitions were filed by the petitioner alleging that the State Police administration remained a silent spectator to the flaring of communal violence in the Ekbalpore-Mominpur area on the eve of Laxmi Puja and prayed for various reliefs. The petitioner contended that steps were not taken to ensure protection of life and property of the members of the Scheduled Caste community affected by the riot and bombs were thrown in the locality but requisite steps under the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008 were not taken. It was also stated by the petitioner that adequate compensation was not given to the victims and other restitutive measures were not taken. [Nabendu Kumar Bandyopadhyay v. State of W.B7]
While deciding a matter related to sale of green firecrackers in West Bengal, the Division bench comprising of Apurba Sinha Ray and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., directed the Pollution Control Board as well as the police authorities to ensure that there is no importation, sale or bursting of crackers other than the green crackers bearing QR Code in the State of West Bengal. In the instant matter, a Public Interest Litigation was filled allegation the violation of Supreme Court’s green cracker norms provides in Arjun Gopal v. Union of India, (2019) 13 SCC 523, in the State of West Bengal. The petitioner contended that neither the State of West Bengal nor the State Pollution Control Board has formulated a mechanism to ensure sale and bursting of green crackers only, thus, resulting in severe noise and air pollution in the State in previous years. The petitioner prayed for a total ban on the sale of firecrackers in the State. [Sabuj Mancha v. State of W.B., 2022 SCC OnLine Cal 3144]
The Division Bench of Joymalya Bagchi and Ananya Bandyopadhyay, JJ. allowed an appeal which was directed against the judgment and order convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine. A 10 year old boy, had gone out to fly kite with his friends and didn’t return that evening, next day body of the boy was found lying in the canal. Two days later, father of the boy returned to his native village from his place of work at Mumbai and filed written complaint alleging his son had been murdered by an unknown person. Couple of days later, he made statement implicating the appellant who was the Moulabi of a nearby mosque. It was alleged that the appellant had illicit relationship with mother of the boy. The child had disclosed the illicit relationship to his father and accordingly appellant nursed a grudge against him. In course of investigation, a gunny bag and rope were recovered from an open spot near the mosque. Appellant absconded and was later arrested. In conclusion of trial the above mentioned punishment was granted. [Md. Firoz Ala v. State of West Bengal8]
The Division Bench of Joymalya Bagchi and Bivas Pattanayak, JJ. modified a sentence imposed which was given in relation to commission of offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs 10,000. Prosecution case, as alleged against the appellant was that when family members of the victim girl aged around 11 years had gone to attend ‘Namsankritan’, the appellant came into the house and embraced her. Thereafter, he committed rape on her. Written complaint was lodged by the mother of the victim. [Dipak Singha v. State of W.B9]
While explaining the law on whether father is obligated to provide maintenance to his daughter irrespective of the fact that she has turned major, Joymalya Bagchi, J., stated that Magistrate is entitled to entertain an application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and grant monetary relief to meet expenses incurred and losses suffered by an aggrieved person under Section 20 of the DV Act, in the event of domestic violence by way of economic abuse is established. Conjoint reading of Section 2(a) and 2(f) of the DV Act would show that a daughter, who is or was living with her father in a domestic relationship by way of consanguinity, is entitled to seek reliefs including monetary relief on her own right as an aggrieved person under Section 2(a) of the DV Act irrespective of the fact whether she is a major or minor. [Menti Trinadha Venkata Ramana v. Menti Lakshmi, 2021 SCC OnLine AP 2860]
The Division Bench of Joymalya Bagchi and K. Suresh Reddy, JJ., held that, SVLDRS Discharge certificate cannot be withheld for transition of disputed credits to GST. The Bench opined that once the declarant had made the payment of the estimated amount as per the statement in the form of SVLDRS-3 within the stipulated time, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the respondents to proceed with adjudication of the show-cause notice issued under the Central Excise Act. Whether availing of Scheme would attach legitimacy to the Cenvat credit on GTA and C&F Agency services to the tune of Rs 17,34,56,893 and the same would be eligible for the purpose of transition under Section 140 of the GST Act. The impugned show cause notice with regard to availing of transitional credit under Section 140 of the GST Act in respect of the Cenvat Credit cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. Court decided not to interfere with the show cause notice and leave it open to the adjudicating authority to take an appropriate decision. Bench also observed that nothing in the scheme empowers the respondent to refuse issuance of the discharge certificate of the basis of any subsequent event apart from the fact of discovery of false statement relating to any material particular in declaration. Availing of transitional credit by the petitioner under the GST Act on the Cenvat credit for GTA and C&F Agency services under the Central Excise Act is a subsequent and separate transaction from the declaration made by him under the Scheme and the adjudication of such claim cannot be said to be barred in law or without jurisdiction. [Bharathi Cement Corporation (P) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Central Tax10]
1. Calcutta High Court- CJ and Judges
2. Supra
3. SC Collegium recommends Justice Joymalya Bagchi as SC Judge- AVP News
4. Calcutta High Court- CJ and Judges
5. https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3ec0490f1f4972d133619a60c30f3559e/uploads/2025/03/2025030654.pdf
6. Supra
7. WPA (P) 528 of 2022
8. C.R.A. 176 of 2019
9. C.R.A. 822 of 2013
10. WP No. 2 of 2021