Justice Pavankumar Bhimappa Bajanthri took over the responsibilities of Chief Justice of Patna High Court when he was appointed as the Court’s 46th Chief Justice in September 2025. Starting his legal career in the 90s, Justice Bajanthri proved his mettle as Advocate and as a Judge. As Justice Bajanthri retires from Patna High Court, we have curated important career milestones and notable judgments by Justice Bajanthri.
Early Life and Career Trajectory
Born on 23-10-1963, Justice P.B Bajanthri studied in Vidhyavardhaka Sangha, K.L.E. Society and S.J.R.C. Law College, Bangalore.
Justice Bajanthri ushered in his legal career by enrolling as an Advocate in 1990 and practiced in High Court of Karnataka, KAT, CAT and Educational Authorities. During 1993-94, Justice Bajanthri appeared as a KPSC Standing Counsel and was subsequently appointed as Notary by the Government of India in May 20061.
Justice Bajanthri began his judicial career after he was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Karnataka High Court on 02-01-2015. He was thereafter transferred as a Judge of High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 16-3-2015. On re-transfer to Karnataka High Court, Justice Bajanthri took oath as Judge of Karnataka High Court on 17-11-2018.
Thereafter, Justice Bajanthri was transferred to Patna High Court where he took oath as Judge of Patna High Court on 20-10-2021. The Collegium on 11-9-2025, recommended Justice Bajanthri’s appointment as next Chief Justice of Patna High Court. On 20-9-2025, the Ministry of Law and Justice notified the appointment of Justice Pavankumar Bhimappa Bajanthri as the 46th Chief Justice of Patna High Court. The President appointed Justice Bajanthri as Chief Justice, in exercise of powers under Article 217(1) of the Constitution.
Notable Judgments
Patna High Court stalls circulation of AI generated video of PM Narendra Modi and his late mother
In a civil writ petition filed by petitioner seeking removal of AI generated video clipping of PM Narendra Modi and his late mother, a Division Bench of the P. B. Bajanthri, ACJ*, and Alok Kumar Sinha, J., while directing the respondents not to circulate the video clipping until further orders held that, prima facie, humiliating a sizeable class of persons in exhibiting video clip cannot be countenanced in a constitutional democracy governed by the principles of dignity, liberty, and fraternity. [Vivekanand Singh v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Pat 2933]
In the instant Civil Writ Petition, wherein the issue was whether the petitioner could be allowed to rectify his form GSTR 3B in accordance with GSTR 1; the Division Bench of P. B. Bajanthri* and S. B. PD. Singh JJ., allowed the petitioner to amend his GSTR 3B after placing reliance on Supreme Court’s decision in Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs v. Aberdare Technologies Pvt. Ltd.1 wherein the Court had affirmed Bombay High Court’s decision to allow the taxpayer to rectify the clerical error. [Om Traders v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Pat 2148]
‘Minor wife’s stay at Girls Care Home not detrimental’; Patna High Court denies custody to husband
While deciding a criminal writ application filed by petitioner seeking for direction to Respondent 8, State Girls Care Home, Gaighat, Patna for release of Respondent 11, the Division Bench of P.B. Bajanthri and Ramesh Chand Malviya*, JJ., held that Respondent 11 who had not attained the age of majority could not be directed to be released by giving her custody to her husband and also to stay with the parents after her refusal to go along with them. Thus, the Court dismissed the petition and upheld her stay at State Girls Care Home as lawful and not detrimental. [Nitish Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine Pat 274]
In a case wherein appellant’s petition for divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’) was declined, the Division Bench of P.B. Bajanthri* and Ramesh Chand Malviya, JJ., opined that the leveling of false allegation by one spouse to the other having alleged illicit relations with different persons outside the wedlock amounted to mental cruelty. The Court thus allowed the present appeal and ordered dissolution of marriage between the parties. [Alok Bharti v. Jyoti Raj, 2023 SCC OnLine Pat 6254]
In an appeal filed by the appellant for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’) against the respondent on the grounds of cruelty by her, the Division Bench consisting of P.B. Bajanthri and Jitendra Kumar*, JJ. dismissed the appeal from the impugned decision of the Family Court and held that the inability to bear a child was not a valid ground for dissolving marriage. [X v. Y, 2023 SCC OnLine Pat 2247]
The Division Bench of Sanjay Karol, CJ. and P.B. Bajanthri, J., took up a petition which following issues were into consideration: Is not the State under an obligation to make available all facilities, including blood, to patients who have the disability of Thalassemia? Is the refusal of blood on account of unavailability to patients suffering from Thalassemia a ground available to the State? Is the State obligated to pay compensation to the families of the patients suffering from Thalassemia who died due to the non-availability of adequate medical facilities?
The Court finally was constrained to direct the formation of an independent committee of doctors to take a survey of all the facilities present in the State, examine their readiness, availability, accessibility and quality, and submit a report on the same. [Amit Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2777]
Object of appointing a person on compassionate ground is to meet the harness; Punjab & Haryana HC reiterates
The Bench of P.B. Bajanthri, J while deciding a case related to grant of compassionate appointment, reiterated that object of appointing a person on compassionate ground is to meet the harness. In the present case the Court observed that the petitioner’s father died in 2004 and for more than a decade family of the petitioner leading life with existing source of income, therefore, there is no need of compassionate appointment at this distance of time. Moreover, appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the crisis in a family on account of the sudden death of the bread winner while in service. [Amrik Singh v. Union of India, 2015 SCC OnLine P&H 14672]
Compulsory retirement cannot be equated to that of dismissal or termination: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Bench of P.B. Bajanthri, J., while considering the petitioner’s challenge to his compulsory retirement, stated that compulsory retirement cannot be equated to that of dismissal or termination. Moreover, time and again appellate/reviewing/revisional authority and courts have interfered with order of penalty like dismissal while modifying the penalty of dismissal to that of compulsory retirement for the sole object or reason is that employee should get some monetary benefits. The State being model employer should construe the provision of a beneficial legislation in a way that extends the benefit to its employee instead of curtailing it. [K.L. Vig v. Canara Bank, 2018 SCC OnLine P&H 8316]
Scope of Regulation 60-A of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 is only for continuation of enquiry and conclusion: Punjab & Haryana HC
The Bench of P.B. Bajanthri, J., while considering challenge to a punishment order, stated that ccope of Regulation 60-A is only for continuation of enquiry and conclusion. The conclusion means against retired employee penalties stated in Regulation 54 cannot be imposed. Penalties stated in Regulation 54 can be imposed against serving employee only. This is evident from reading of Regulation 54.
Karnataka High Court reiterates the essentials of a family settlement
The Division Bench of P.B. Bajanthri and Nataraj Rangaswamy, JJ., reiterated the essential elements of family settlements. It was stated that the family settlement must be a bona fide one so as to resolve family disputes and rival claims by a fair and equitable division or allotment of properties between the various members of the family; the said settlement must be voluntary and should not be induced by fraud, coercion or undue influence; family arrangements may be even oral in which case no registration is necessary; registration would be necessary only if the terms of the family arrangement are reduced into writing. [Mary v. John Bernard Mascarenhas Business, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 5155]
‘Desertion’ means the intentional permanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the other without that other’s consent and without reasonable cause: Karnataka HC
The Division Bench of P.B. Bajanthri* and Nataraj Rangaswamy, JJ., opined that ‘desertion’ means the intentional permanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the other without that other’s consent and without reasonable cause. It is a total repudiation of the obligations of marriage. – Desertion is not the withdrawal from a place but from a state of things, for what the law seeks to enforce is the recognition and discharge of the common obligations of the married state; the state of things may usually be termed, for short ‘the home’. There can be desertion without previous cohabitation by the parties, or without the marriage having been consummated. [Renuka v. Sangappa, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3112]
P.B. Bajanthri, J., while allowing the present writ petition against the termination of services without any disciplinary enquiry, reiterated the settled precedents and further vested the liberty to conduct the said enquiry, now, with the respondent authority, in accordance with law. [K.S. Puttaswamy v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 1631]
P.B. Bajanthri J., dismissed the petition for regularisation of the service on the ground that statutory rule recognizing such right was not in their favor. A petition was made to quash the endorsement issued to the petitioner and to seek respondent to regularize their services in the post of accounting consultant from their initial date of appointment and to extend the pay scale. [Preethi Bhandage v. State of Karnataka, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 685]
Power conferred on the High Court under Art. 226 is to advance justice and not to thwart it: Karnataka High Court
The Bench of P.B. Bajanthri, J., while considering proceedings under Income Tax Act, 1961, stated that the power conferred on the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India is to advance justice and not to thwart it. The very purpose of such Constitutional powers being conferred on the High Court is that no man should be subjected to injustice by violating law. This court does not sit as an appellate authority over the decision of the authorities below. Further, while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction by the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution, it should examine whether the impugned action is per se illegal or vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record. [Devas Multimedia P. Ltd. v. Pr. CIT, (2019) 419 ITR 391]
1. https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/judge/MzQ3-E6mA–am1–Dsn–am1–v8=