Know Thy Newly Appointed Supreme Court Judge: Justice V. Mohana

Justice V. Mohana, who is a first-generation lawyer¹ with an extensive practice of over 3 decades, created history on 2 June 2026 when she became the 12^th woman² to be appointed as Judge of Supreme Court. She further gained the distinction of being 11^th advocate to be directly elevated from the Bar as Supreme Court Judge³. Furthermore, Justice Mohana joins Justice B.V. Nagarathna as the 2^nd sitting woman Judge at the Supreme Court Bench⁴.

*Did you Know? Justice V. Mohana became the Second woman to be directly elevated from the Bar as Supreme Court Judge⁵ after former Supreme Court Judge, Justice Indu Malhotra⁶

Education

Born on 27 June 1966, Justice V. Mohana did her schooling from Government Higher Secondary School for Girls, Erode, Tamil Nadu. In 1983, she pursued Law in her graduation from Coimbatore Law College, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, as part of the first batch of five years law course and obtained her degree in 1988⁷.

*Did you Know? In a serendipitous coincidence, Justice V. Mohana and sitting Judge Justice K.V. Viswanathan are not only former classmates at Coimbatore Law College, but they also hold the distinction of being Supreme Court Judges who were directly elevated from the Bar.⁸

Legal Career⁹

After finishing her law degree, Justice V. Mohana enrolled in the Bar Association of Tamil Nadu, on 11 November 1988 and from there she was transferred to the roll of Bar Council of Delhi. During her advocacy she attended the chambers of M. Panchapakesan, a leading Civil Lawyer at Coimbatore, as an intern and as an Advocate.

*Did you Know? In another serendipitous coincidence, in May 1992 Justice V. Mohana joined and assisted Justice Indu Malhotra, (then an Advocate-on-Record and later who became the first woman to be elevated from Bar as Judge of the Supreme Court) in important cases before the Supreme Court, Delhi High Court and various Tribunals in Delhi.

Adding onto her advocacy repertoire, Justice Mohana also worked in the chambers of C.S. Vaidyanathan, Senior Advocate and former Additional Solicitor General of India and assisted him in several cases before the Supreme Court and other forums.

Justice Mohana qualified for her enrolment as an Advocate-on-Record of Supreme Court of India in April 1996. On 23 April 2015, she was designated as a Senior Advocate by the Supreme Court. During her tenure of practising as Senior Advocate, Justice Mohana argued upon diverse cases on different subjects before the Supreme Court and various High Courts in India. She also appeared before the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court and was appointed as Amicus Curiae in many matters by the Supreme Court.

Membership of Important Committees¹⁰

Though Justice Mohana’s hands were full of cases that she was working on, she however, also contributed immensely with her knowledge and expertise as a key member of the following notable Committees:

1. She has actively worked for the Gender Sensitization and Internal Complaints Committee (GSICC) as an elected and nominated member of the Supreme Court.

2. She was a member of the Supreme Court Middle Income Group Legal Aid Committee

3. Justice Mohana was also a member of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.

4. In 2018, Justice Mohana, in her capacity as a counsel, assisted the Commission of Enquiry headed by former CJI U.U. Lalit (who was a sitting Judge at that time) in the matter of removal of a member of the Railway Claims Tribunal.

Justice V. Mohana’s Contributions towards Alternate Dispute Resolutions¹¹

1. Justice V. Mohana has conducted several mediations including Commercial Mediation through the Mediation Centre as well as in other cases as appointed by the Supreme Court.

2. She also conducted several domestic and international arbitrations and rendered awards as an Arbitrator appointed by the Supreme Court.

Justice V. Mohana’s Elevation as Supreme Court Judge

In recognition of her extensive career as an advocate spanning almost 3 decades and her expertise, the Supreme Court Collegium on 27 May 2026, recommended Senior Advocate V. Mohana’s elevation as Judge of Supreme Court directly from the Bar. Accepting the Collegium’s recommendations, the President on 1 June 2026, in exercise of powers conferred by Article 124(2) of the Constitution appointed her as Judge of Supreme Court and she took oath of office on 2 June 2026. Justice Mohana is expected to serve for a tenure of 4 years and will retire on 26 June 2031.

Also Read:Article 124 of Indian Constitution | SCC Blog

Notable Decisions of Justice V. Mohana so far

In Sarika Tyagi v. Union of India¹², which was a PIL filed by a group of women advocates practising in different courts across India, seeking judicial intervention regarding lack of adequate facilities for women advocates in court complexes and the financial hardships faced by young advocates during the initial years of practice, the Division Bench of Surya Kant, CJ., and V. Mohana, J., considering the significance of the issues and their implications for the legal profession, issued notice to all respondents and made tentative and illustrative observations intended to facilitate discussion among stakeholders.

In T.K.A. Padmanabhan v. Abhiyan Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1160, arising from a dispute concerning delayed delivery of a residential flat, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and V. Mohana, JJ. held that the existence of an arbitration clause in an agreement does not oust the jurisdiction of consumer fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Court reiterated that consumer remedies are statutory, additional, and independent of other remedies available under law. The Bench further held that once a consumer complaint has been admitted, it cannot be transferred to arbitration or any other forum by virtue of the proviso to Section 12(4), Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Clarifying the scope of the term “consumer”, the Court ruled that an allottee does not lose the right to seek compensation for delayed possession merely because possession of the flat has subsequently been delivered. Consequently, the Court set aside the orders of the consumer fora below and restored the complaint for adjudication on merits.

Notable Case Appearances by Justice V. Mohana

Justice V. Mohana appeared in Pooja Pal v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 468, which highlighted the structural disadvantages and systemic unfairness for women in Armed Forces over consideration of SSCWOs for Permanent Commission.

Justice V. Mohana appeared in Aishat Shifa (Hijab Case-2 J.) v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 2 SCC 1, which revolved around a Government Order dated 5 February 2022, that imposed dress code for students of all schools and colleges of Karnataka “in the interests of unity, equality and public order”. The order was passed after it was brought to the education department’s notice that students in a few institutions have been carrying out their religious observances, which has become an obstacle to unity and uniformity in the schools and colleges.

In the case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v Union of India,(2016) 5 SCC 1, Justice V. Mohana appeared as senior counsel wherein the Supreme Court declared the 99^th Constitutional Amendment as unconstitutional and violative of Basic Structure of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court in the case High Court Judges Pension Refixation Considering Service Period in District Judiciary & High Court, In re, (2025) 7 SCC 674 , where respondents were represented by Senior Advocate, V Mohana. The Court upheld the principle of One Rank One Pension (OROP), ensuring that all retired High Court judges receive equal pension benefits regardless of their service duration or service breaks. The Court emphasised that there should be no discrimination in the payment of pension to retired Judges for the constitutional office of a High Court Judge. It was asserted that Judges, regardless of their source of entry, should receive equal terminal benefits after retirement, similar to the salary they received while serving. The Court directed the Union of India to provide family pension and gratuity to dependents of Judges who die in service, adding 10 years to service length.

In a complex case of Navneet Wadhwa v. Simran Wadhwa, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1078 Senior Advocate, V. Mohana presented arguments for the respondents. In this case both parties claimed to be disabled to get the matrimonial case transferred to the court of their convenience. The Family Court directed the husband to pay the maintenance to the wife under Section 125(1) CrPC after dissolving their marriage. The Court held that one cannot seek transfer of execution proceeding under Section 125(3) CrPC to another Court once the order fixing maintenance attains finality. The Supreme Court dismissed the transfer petitions, holding the petitioner undeserving of indulgence.

Justice V. Moahna represented the appellants in the case of Indresh Kumar Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 449 where the Court, dismissed the appeals, upholding the cancellation of candidates’ applications for teacher recruitment on finding that the respective candidates were not having the requisite qualification as per the advertisement, namely, the Postgraduate/Bachelor degree in History, which was the requirement as per the advertisement. The Court held that once the Expert Committee has opined that the degrees obtained by the candidates in one branch of History cannot be said to be obtaining the degree in History as a whole, the Court cannot go against such finding.

In the case of Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar, 2015 SCC OnLine SC 102 filed through a civil appeal represented by Senior Advocate, V. Mohana, the Supreme Court held that transparency is the most cherished feature of democracy and failure to disclose the criminal antecedents by a candidate can amount to corrupt practices, eventually destroying the sanctity of constitutional democracy. It was observed that the voluntary interference or attempt to interfere with the free exercise of electoral right are the basic concept of ‘undue influence’ relating to an election. The voluntary act encompasses attempts to interfere with the free exercise of the electoral right.

The case of Jamia Masjid v. KV Rudrappa, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 792 revolving around deciding if the property is personal or wakf-owned, Justice V. Mohana raised the arguments in favour of the appellants with a plea of res judicata and trust ownership being the central legal issues. The Supreme Court while examining the applicability of the plea of res judicata determined that if the requisites of Section 11 CPC are fulfilled; and if this is answered in the affirmative, it will have to be determined if there has been any material alteration in law or facts since the first suit was decreed as a result of which the principle of res judicata would be inapplicable.

In the case of Selvaraj v. Revathi, (2024) 13 SCC 534 , Senior Counsel V. Mohana assisted the court as Aamicus Ccuriae. The Court allowed the mother to call the child and have visitation rights. Considering the Amicus Curiae’s suggestions to make an effort through the High Court’s Mediation Centre for an interaction of the child with a Counsellor, and the child being averse to visiting the Court, the Bench suggested to plan such counselling at a place other than the Court Complex. the Court further directed Senior Counsel V. Mohana to interact with the child and parents at different times, who also counselled them. The Court emphasized that in custody disputes, the welfare of the child is paramount, and at his age the boy was mature enough to express his preferences. The Court acknowledged the importance of both parents in a child’s life and encouraged counselling to improve the mother-child relationship.

In the case of Kanchan Dua v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1246, Justice V Mohana was appointed as Amicus Curiae, to assist the Supreme Court, dealing with a widow’s claim for Liberalised Family Pension after her husband’s death from sudden cardiac failure. The Court examined government instructions dated 31 January 2001, which provide Liberalised Family Pension for deaths or disabilities arising from specified operational causes (Category ‘E’). The Court held that cardiac failure was a natural cause, not an injury sustained in action, and therefore the appellant did not qualify for the Liberalised Family Pension under Category ‘E’.

In the case of M. Naga Venkata Lakshmi v. Visakhapatnam Municipal Corpn., 2007 SCC OnLine SC 1151 revolving around the denial of construction of appellant’s land as it was registered as an “open space”, despite having a valid sale deed. Justice V. Mohana represented the respondent putting forward the relevant facts and evidence for the Court to decide the case on merits. The Court held that Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority’s action violated her property rights, as authorities must follow due process and cannot deprive the appellant from her property without compensation. It criticised the High Court for dismissing her petition without examining the safeguards, set aside its order, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.

In Paliniswamy Veeraraja v. State of Karnataka, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 940 where Justice V. Mohana represented the appellants arose from a business dispute, where the appellants were represented by Senior Advocate V Mohana, sought quashing of proceedings, arguing lack of jurisdiction, repeated investigations without proper sanction, and absence of ingredients of criminal offences. The Supreme Court noted the dispute’s essentially civil character, the questionable legality of repeated investigations under Section 173(8) CrPC, and the lack of evidence of forgery or cheating. It therefore allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order. The case highlights the boundary between civil disputes and criminal liability, and the importance of procedural safeguards in criminal investigations.¹³