Know thy Judge

“The world acknowledges that children in conflict with law should be treated differently than adults in conflict with law. The reason is that the mind of the child has not attained maturity and it is still developing. Therefore, the child should be tested on different parameters and should be given an opportunity of being brought into the main stream if, during his juvenility, has acted in conflict with law.” 

Vikram Nath 

Barun Chandra Thakur v. Bholu,  2022 SCC OnLine SC 870


To Know About: 

Name: Vikram Nath (Sitting Judge of the Supreme Court of India) 

Assumed Office: 31-08-2021 

Retires On: 24-09-2027 

Previously: Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court  

                    Judge of the Allahabad High Court 


Born on 24-09-1962, Justice Vikram Nath hails from a family of lawyers with him being the 4th generation in his family to pursue law. He obtained his law degree from the University of Lucknow in 1986. He enrolled as an advocate on 30-03-1987 and practised as an advocate in the Allahabad High Court. 

  • Did You Know?  Justice Nath practised as an advocate for 17 years before he was elevated as an Additional Judge of the Allahabad High Court in 2004. 

Justice Vikram Nath was elevated as an Additional Judge of the Allahabad High Court on 24-09-2004 and was made a permanent Judge of the Allahabad High Court on 27-02-2006. 

  • Did You Know?  Justice Vikram Nath was recommended for first Chief Justice of new Andhra Pradesh HC, following the bifurcation of a combined High Court for Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, but the Centre disapproved the recommendations. 

Justice Nath was appointed as Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court on 10-09-2019.  

  • Did You Know?  Justice Nath is the first Chief Justice of a High Court in India to live stream its proceedings on Youtube during the 2020 Covid Pandemic. 

Justice Nath was elevated to the Supreme Court on 31-08-2021. 

  • Did You Know?  Justice Vikram Nath is likely to serve as the Chief Justice of India for seven months from February 10, 2027 to September 24, 2027. 


Notable Judgements at Supreme Court 


Manipulated laboratory report, broken links of evidence; Supreme Court reverses concurrent findings of Courts below to acquit a murder accused 

The Division Bench of Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath*, JJ., reversed the impugned judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Trial Court of convicting the appellant for murder on the basis of circumstantial evidence. 

Noting that there were many broken links in the chain of evidence and the prosecution could not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Casting a doubt on the prosecution version, the Court remarked, 

“The milk which is said to be adulterated with the poison was taken out from the refrigerator, transferred into a pan for boiling, and thereafter given to the deceased. If it actually had organophosphorus in it the smell would have filled up the room. The deceased being a healthy woman aged 45 years would not have consumed it if the pungent smell was coming from the milk. Even the informant did not sense any foul smell from the milk while boiling it.” 

[Rajbir Singh v. State of Punjab, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1090, decided on 24-08-2022] 

Read More… 


Mental capacity & ability to understand consequences of acts not same; Guidelines must be in place for preliminary assessment of children above 16 years of age for trial as adults 

In an unfortunate incident in 2017, a class II student was found with his throat slit in the bathroom of his school. A class XI student, aged 16 years and 5 months on the date of the incident, was arrested. The Supreme Court was called upon to examine the preliminary assessment made under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The bench of Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath*, JJ has asked the Central Government and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights and the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights to consider issuing guidelines or directions in this regard which may assist and facilitate the Board in making the preliminary assessment under section 15 of the Act, 2015. 

“A child with average intelligence/IQ will have the intellectual knowledge of the consequences of his actions. But whether or not he is able to control himself or his actions will depend on his level of emotional competence. For example, risky driving may result in an accident. But if emotional competence is not high, the urge for thrill seeking may get the better of his intellectual understanding.”

[Barun Chandra Thakur v. Bholu, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 870, decided on 13.07.2022] 

Read More… 


Unless there’s a written instrument declaring land was voluntarily relinquished for no consideration, State cannot deny payment of compensation 

The Division Court of Vikram Nath* and Dinesh Masheswari, JJ., held that the State’s act of taking the appellants’ property, all being farmers, without compensation, was arbitrary, irrational, and a clear violation of Article 300A of the Constitution. Since the land in question was agricultural, the Court opined that non-payment of adequate compensation would amount to a violation of the right to livelihood; a fundamental right under Article 21. 

[Kalyani v. Sulthan Bathery Municipality, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 516, decided on 26-04-2022] 

Read More… 


Mafat Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2022) 6 SCC 589 

The Division Court of Vikram Nath* and S A Nazeer, JJ., held that kidnapping would necessarily involve enticing or taking away any minor under 18 yrs of age, if a female, for offence under S. 363 IPC to be made out. 


Why has the legislature left it open for the plaintiff to value his claim for the six categories of the suit falling under Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act, 1870? 

In case relating to court fees, the bench of Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath*, JJ had the occasion to explains why the legislature had left it open for the plaintiff to value his claim for the six categories of the suit falling under Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act, 1870. 

[State of Punjab v. Dev Brat Sharma, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 330, decided on 16.03.2022] 

Read More… 


Right to promotion is not considered to be a fundamental right but consideration for promotion has now been evolved as a fundamental right: Supreme Court 

The 3-Judges Bench comprising of D.Y. Chandrachud, Vikram Nath* and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., set aside the seniority list prepared by the Department of Minor Irrigation, U.P. on finding the list to be in contravention of statutory mandate. The Bench stated, 

“The Appointing Authority ought to have prepared a combined merit list based upon the performance or the proficiency on the basis of the marks received in the selection test as prepared by the Commission; otherwise, it would amount to denial of the right of consideration for promotion to a more meritorious candidate as against a candidate having lesser merit.”

[Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1195, decided on 08-12-2021] 

Read More… 


Same offence but separate trials – Can appellate court pass common judgment based on evidence recorded in only one trial? 

In the case where two different criminal appeals were being heard against two sets of accused, on account of one of them absconding, and decided against two different judgments based upon evidence recorded in separate trials, though for the commission of the same offence, the 3-judge bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath* and BV Nagarathna, has held that the Madras High Court fell into an error while passing a common judgement, based on evidence recorded in only one trial, against two sets of accused persons having been subjected to separate trials. 

[AT Mydeen v. Customs Department, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1017, decided on 29.10.2021] 

Read More… 


Entire country under impression that Re-Rolling Steel Plants do not require prior Environmental Clearance; NGT right in giving such plants opportunity to meet the requirement 

In an appeal regarding the jurisdiction of National Green Tribunal’s (NGT) to pass an order to operate a unit without Environmental Clearance and against the decision of closure of the unit, the bench of Hemant Gupta* and Vikram Nath, JJ. has observed that there was no error in the order passed by the Tribunal that opportunity should be provided to re-rolling or cold rolling units to fall within Environmental Clearance (EC) regime by granting a period of at least one year to operate for the purpose. However, the order of closure of the unit cannot be sustained. 

[Gajubha Jadeja Jesar v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 993, decided on 10.08.2022] 

Read More… 


Bilkis Bano’s rapists walk free: Supreme Court issues notice to Gujarat Government  

When on August 15, 2022, her rapists walked out of the prison after serving 15 years’ imprisonment based on Gujarat Government’s remission policy, Bilkis Bano found herself “bereft of words” and “numb”. 

The 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, CJ and Ajay Rastogi and Vikram Nath, JJ has issued notice to the Gujarat Government on the release of 11 men convicted for the gangrape of Bilkis Bano during the 2002 Gujarat riots. The Court has also directed that the 11 released men be impleaded as parties in the plea challenging the decision of the Gujarat Government. 

[Subhashini Ali v. State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1083, order dated 25.08.2022] 

Read More… 


What happens when a candidate, in a competitive exam, uses different language in answer sheet than that filled in application form? 

In the case where a candidate appearing for examination for recruitment to the post of Constables in Railway Protection Force (RPF) had used a different language in the OMR answer book than that filled in the application form, the bench of Hemant Gupta* and Vikram Nath, JJ has held that his candidature was rightly rejected. 

[Union of India v. Mahendra Singh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 909, decided on 25.07.2022] 

Read More… 


Bail applications of co-accused arising from the self-same FIR shall be listed before the same court to avoid disparity 

With a view to bringing reform in practices relating to disposal of bail applications arising from the same case, the Division Bench of Ajay Rastogi and Vikram Nath, JJ., held that where more than one bail application has been filed by co-accused of offences arising from self-same FIR, all such applications shall be listed before the same court to avoid disparity.   

[Abhyanand Sharma v. State of Bihar, W.P. (Cr) No. 420 of 2021, decided on 10-05-2022]   

Read More… 


FIR for repeated rape cannot be filed just because a long standing relationship is no longer working out; Pre-arrest bail granted 

The Division Bench of Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath, JJ has granted pre-arrest bail to a man in a case relating to the rape of the woman he had been in a relationship with for four years. 

When the relationship between the bail applicant and the complainant started, the complainant was 21 years of age. Taking these factors together, the Court observed, 

“…the complainant has willingly been staying with the appellant and had the relationship. Therefore, now if the relationship is not working out, the same cannot be a ground for lodging an FIR for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC.”

[Ansaar Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.962 OF 2022, order dated 14.07.2022] 


Long co-habiting couple’s child cannot be disentitled from family property in absence of proof against presumption of marriage 

In a family property dispute wherein the legitimacy of one of the contenders was questioned, the Division Bench of SA Nazeer* and Vikram Nath, JJ has held that if a man and a woman live together for long years as husband and wife, there would be a presumption in favour of wedlock and since in the present case, the defendants had failed to rebut the presumption in favour of a marriage between the plaintiff’s parents on account of their long co-habitation, he cannot be held to be an illegitimate son. 

[Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 737, decided on 13.06.2022] 

Read More… 


Whether the term “school children” includes university students while interpreting Government Memo exempting buses carrying school children from Passengers Tax?  

While holding that the term “school children” will include college and university as well while interpreting government memo exempting passengers’ tax in respect of Stage Carriage (buses) owned by educational institution and used for the transportation of children to and from such institutions, the Division Bench of Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath, JJ., remarked, 

“It gets perforce reiterated that the broad expression “children”, obviously, refers to the students taking instructions in educational institutions, irrespective of their class or standard or level.”

[State of Haryana v. Daronacharya College of Engineering, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3333, order dated 27-09-2021] 

Read More… 


IGST on Ocean Freight for imports unconstitutional; Won’t create a level playing field but will drive Indian shipping lines out of business 

In the case where the constitutionality of two Central Government notifications related to levy of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) was under scanner, the 3-judge bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud*, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath, JJ has held that since the Indian importer is liable to pay IGST on the ‘composite supply’, comprising of supply of goods and supply of services of transportation, insurance, etc. in a CIF contract, a separate levy on the Indian importer for the ‘supply of services’ by the shipping line would be in violation of Section 8 of the CGST Act. 

The Court observed that, 

“If Indian shipping lines continue to be taxed and not their competitors, namely, the foreign shipping lines, the margins arising out of taxation from GST would not create a level playing field and drive the Indian shipping lines out of business.”

[Union of India v. Mohit Minerals (P) Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 657, decided on 19.05.2022] 

Read More… 


“Democratic interests cannot be judicially aborted to preserve unfettered freedom to conduct business, of the few”; Govt. decision to ban MTTs in PPE products ensures adequate PPE in India 

In a case where an intermediary between the sale of PPE products by a supplier in China to a buyer in the United States, challenged the prohibition of the export of PPE products from India, the bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud*, Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna, JJ held that as a developing country with a sizeable population, banning MTTs in PPE products was critical in ensuring that Indian foreign exchange reserves are not utilized to facilitate the hoarding of PPE products with wealthier nations. 

The Court held that, 

“Democratic interests that secure the well-being of the masses cannot be judicially aborted to preserve the unfettered freedom to conduct business, of the few.”

[Akshay N. Patel v. RBI, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1180, decided on 06.12.2021] 

Read More… 


Disciplinary proceedings against person with mental disability is a facet of indirect discrimination; SC sets aside action against CRPF personnel 

In a case where the CRPF had initiated disciplinary proceeding against a person with a medical history of obsessive compulsive disorder  and depression and has been undergoing treatment for the same since 2009, the 3-judge bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud*, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath, JJ has held that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against persons with mental disabilities is a facet of indirect discrimination as such persons suffer a disproportionate disadvantage due to the impairment and are more likely to be subjected to disciplinary proceedings. 

“…while the stigma and discrimination against persons with mental health disorders are rampant in society, as the highest constitutional court of the country, it falls upon us to ensure that societal discrimination does not translate into legal discrimination.”

[Ravindra Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1293, decided on 17.12.2021] 

Read More… 


Women burdened with an unequal share of family responsibilities yet discriminated at workplace; State must consider family life while framing any policy 

Speaking about the systemic discrimination on account of gender at the workplace which encapsulates the patriarchal construction that permeates all aspects of a woman’s being from the outset, including reproduction, sexuality and private choices, within an unjust structure, the bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud* and Vikram Nath, JJ has observed that it becomes necessary for the Government to adopt policies through which it produces substantive equality of opportunity as distinct from a formal equality for women in the workplace. 

[SK Nausad Rahaman v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 297, decided on 10.03.2022] 

Read More… 


Notable Judgements at High Court 


[Midnight Hearing] | Situation of Ahmedabad on account of COVID-19 cannot be compared with situation in Puri or in the State of Orissa (sic Odisha); No Rath Yatra at Ahmedabad 

A Division Bench of Vikram Nath, CJ* and J.B. Pardiwala, J., rejected all the civil applications in a midnight hearing, filed with regard to granting permission for Rath Yatra on the ground that Supreme Court allowed the Yatra in restricted manner by modifying its earlier order. 

[Mahant Akhileshwardasji Ramlakhandasji v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 917 , decided on 23-06-2020] 

Read More 

Also Read | SC modifies order; Jagannath Puri Rath Yatra to take place in a restricted manner 


 “If State would not have been doing anything, we all would have been dead”: Gujarat High Court berates politicizing of COVID-19 situation while at the same time reminding the State of its Constitutional obligations 

A Division Bench of Vikram Nath, CJ and J.B. Pardiwala, J.* while addressing certain issues with regard to COVID-19, stated that, 

“Healthcare access is the ability to obtain healthcare services such as prevention, diagnosis, treatment and management of diseases, illness, disorders, and other health ­impacting conditions. For healthcare to be accessible it must be affordable and convenient.”  

[Suo Motu v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 836, decided on 29-05-2020] 

Read More 


[COVID-19] | No Rath Yatra shall be carried out at Ahmedabad; No activities secular or religious associated with Rath Yatra to be conducted 

A Division Bench of Vikram Nath, CJ* and J.B. Pardiwala, J., held that in view of present times of outbreak of COVID-19, there shall be no Rath Yatra at Ahmedabad and any of the districts in the State of Gujarat.  

[Hitesh Kumar Vittalbhai Chavda v. Shri Jagannathji Mandir Trust, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 910 , decided on 20-06-2020] 

Read More 


U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Urmila Devi, 2011 SCC OnLine All 152 

The 3- Judge Bench comprising of Ferdino Inacio Rebello, C.J. and Vineet Saran and Vikram Nath, JJ., deliberated upon the question that whether the definition of “family” under the U.P. State Electricity Board Dying in Harness Rules, 1975 would include a daughter-in-law. It was observed that a daughter-in-law on the death of her husband, does not cease to be a part of the family. 

“The concept that such daughter-in-law must go back and stay with her parents is abhorrent to our civilized society. Such daughter-in-law must, therefore, have also right to be considered for compassionate appointment as she is part of the family where she is? married and if staying with her husband’s family. In this context, in our opinion, arbitrariness, as presently existing, can be avoided by including the daughter-in-law in the definition of ‘family’. Otherwise, the definition to that extent, prima facie, would be irrational and arbitrary. The State, therefore, to consider this aspect and take appropriate steps so that a widowed daughter-in-law like a widowed daughter, is also entitled for consideration by way of compassionate appointment, if other criteria is satisfied”. 


‘Harrowing Tales, Unfortunate and Unimaginable Difficulties’ HC takes suo moto cognizance due to upsurge in COVID-19 cases and asks what steps Government will take 

The Division Bench of Vikram Nath, CJ and Bhargav D. Karia, J., had a dialogue with the Senior most State Law Officers, Advocate General and Government Pleader expressing concern regarding the upsurge of COVID-19 cases in the State and requesting the State to take appropriate measures in order to check and control the rise in COVID-19 cases and its management. 

[Suo Motu v. State of Gujarat, R/WP (PIL) No. 53 of 2021, decided on 12-04-2021] 

Read More… 


Respondent entitled to gratuity under S. 2(e) of Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009; Court dismisses appeal while reproducing observations of Single Judge 

The Division Bench of Vikram Nath, CJ and Ashutosh J. Shastri, J., dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal which was filed aggrieved by the judgment and order passed in Special Civil Application. 

The Court stated that order cannot be said to be perverse in any form, as all possible contentions which had been raised have been dealt with by the Single Judge. The Court further mentioned that after construing the relevant provisions, namely Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009 and after analyzing the facts in the context of Section 40(c) of the Act, they were in conformity with the view taken by the Single Judge. 

[Godhara Sarvajanik Shikshan Mandal v. Dimpleben Bhrupeshkumar Shah, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 1656, decided on 03-02-2020] 

Read More… 


Employed woman permitted to appear for All India Bar Examination; Directions issued to the Bar Council of Gujarat  

A Division Bench of Vikram Nath, CJ and J.B. Padiwala, J., allowed a petition which was filed praying to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in order to quash and set aside Rule 1 and Rule 2 of the Bar Council of Gujarat (Enrollment) Rules to the extent that they prohibited the admission of a person who was otherwise qualified to be admitted as an advocate, but was either in full or part-time service or employment or was engaged in any trade, business or profession, as an advocate. 

[Twinkle Rahul Mangaonkar v. Union of India, R/Special Civil Application No.  15123 of 2019, decided on 06-10-2020] 

Read More… 


Virtual Streaming of Court proceedings to be decided after Judge’s report to work out modalities in view of facilitating public at large 

A Division Bench of Vikram Nath, CJ and P.B. Pardiwala*, J., while addressing an issue with regard to the live streaming of the Court proceedings held that a committee to work out the modalities for the said purpose has been constituted comprising of two Judges of this Court. 

“Right to Know and receive information is one of the facts of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and for which reason the public is entitled to witness the Court proceedings.” 

[Pruthvirajsinh Zala v. Gujarat High Court, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 1055 , decided on 20-07-2020] 

Read More… 


Tablighi Jamaat Crisis | Union of India to provide complete information to State of Gujarat of persons who were present for Tablighi Jamaat & have entered Gujarat 

A Division Bench of Vikram Nath*, CJ and Ashutosh J. Shastri, J. addressed a suo motu public interest litigation in view of incident of mass congregation in Delhi. 

At least 200 members of the said congregation have been reported to traveled to the State of Gujarat who may be infected with COVID-19. News reports have further confirmed death of one person in Gujarat out of a total of 8 deaths all over the country who had participated in the congregation at Delhi. 

[Suo Motu v. State of Gujarat,  2020 SCC OnLine Guj 385, decided on 01-04-2020] 

Read More… 


* Judge who has penned the judgment. 

†Ritu Singh, Editorial Assistant, EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Gujarat High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts


Gujarat High Court: While deciding the instant matter concerning copyright infringement, the Bench of Niral Mehta, J., observed that a bare perusal of Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957 makes it clear that if any person uses any product without the permission of the license owner or from the Registrar, the same would amount to infringement of copyright.

The instant application was filed before the Court seeking quashment of the FIR against the applicant. The counsel of the applicant submitted that present impugned FIR is nothing but a sheer abuse of process of law. It was further submitted that the impugned FIR has been filed by respondent with an objective to oust the applicant from the business. Heavy reliance was placed upon the certificates of registration of copyright issued by the Registrar of Copyright and Section 51 of the Copyright Act, which states that if any person without a licence granted by the owner of the copyright or the Registrar of Copyright under the said Act does anything, then it would amount to infringement. It was contended that since the applicant had the certificates issued by the Registrar of Copyright, therefore, they cannot be said to have committed any infringement.

Meanwhile the respondents strongly opposed the application.

Perusing the contentions presented, the Court observed that issues raised in the matter require consideration. However, the Court did grant an interim relief to the applicant while stating its prima facie reasons for the same’

  • Section 51 of the Copyright Act is clear as to what amounts to copyright infringement. However, in the present case, the applicant is a holder of a certificate issued by the Registrar of Copyright; thus, prima facie, ingredients of Section 51 have not been satisfied.

  • The Court further stated that invocation of Section 64 of the Copyright Act by the police in the FIR is nothing, but a sheer non-application of mind by the police because Section 64 is not an offence, but the power given to the Police or Investigating Officer to seize the material if any infringement is found.

[Maheshbhai @ Kanbhai Haribhai Sojitra v. State of Gujarat, R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 8581 of 2022, decided on 14-09-2022]

Advocates who appeared in this case:

Pratik Jasani, Advocate, for the Applicant(s) No. 1;

Pranav Trivedi, APP, Advocate, for the Respondent(s) No. 1.

*Sucheta Sarkar, Editorial Assistant, has prepared this brief.

Gujarat High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gujarat High Court: The instant petitions came up before the Court challenging the Award of the Labour Court, Vadodara, whereby which it was held that since the workmen had applied for withdrawal from their company’s Voluntary Retirement Scheme after having enjoyed the benefits of the scheme and without refunding the same, therefore they cannot challenge their termination. The Bench of Biren Vaishnav, J., while deciding upon the petition, observed that once the Labour Court has exercised its jurisdiction judiciously, the High Court can interfere with the Award, only if it is satisfied that the same is vitiated by any fundamental flaws.

Two Sides of The Story: Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. (originally owned and managed by the Central Government) in the course of implementing the policy of disinvestment, diverted its share capital to Reliance Industries Ltd., which became a major stakeholder of the Company. The Company then promoted two schemes via Circular dated 06-03-2007 – the Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) and Special Separation Scheme (SSS), in order to downsize its staff. Under the scheme, regular employees of the Vadodara Complex were eligible to apply and the same was operative from 06-03-2007 to 20-03-2007.

The Petitioners stated that about 2400 employees applied under the scheme; however, the Scheme did not mention any period vis-a-vis providing an opportunity to an employee to withdraw themselves from the scheme. Under the threat of being transferred to Jamnagar, the petitioners were compelled to apply under the scheme, which they did on the last date i.e. 20.03.2007.

Having so applied, in the late evening of 20.03.2007, they orally requested for withdrawal of their Voluntary Retirement Applications. Their request was refused by the Officer of the Company on the grounds that the data was already locked in their computer and reconsideration / withdrawal was not possible.

The petitioners further stated that on 21-03-2007 they requested for the withdrawal of their applications, however, an endorsement was made that the competent authority shall take a decision. According to the petitioners, the letters dated 20.03.2007 were posted on 26.03.2007 informing the petitioners of the acceptance of their applications. The petitioners claimed that this “acceptance of letters” was a deception put on by the Company to show that the offer of the employees was accepted and that there was concluded contract and, therefore, no withdrawal can be permitted. The case of the petitioners was that despite letters in June and August 2007, no decision was taken and, therefore, the action of the Company in accepting their applications was illegal and that the petitioners must be reinstated in service.

The Company stated that the VSS / SSS Scheme was open up to 20-03-2007 and 19 employees who made applications for withdrawal on or before 20.03.2007 were considered by the Company and such employees were allowed to withdraw their applications. They stated that the present petitioners did not withdraw their applications before acceptance. Moreover, they accepted all the benefits flowing from the scheme and after receiving the benefits, they raised an industrial dispute. The Company’s stand was that once having accepted the amounts under the Scheme, it was not open for them to turn around and claim benefits of reinstatement.

Award of the Labour Court: The dispute came up before the Labour Court, Vadodara, who, upon perusal of the facts and contentions, held that the workmen (petitioners herein) were unable to establish that they were threatened to be transferred to Jamnagar if they did not take VRS. The Labour Court also held that the employees had applied for withdrawal after having enjoyed the benefits of the scheme and after being silent for a period of three months, have objected to the VSS/SSS without refunding the benefits; therefore, they have no right to challenge their termination now.

Observations by the High Court: After a detailed perusal of the proceedings before the Labour Court, facts and evidence presented, the Court noted that the VSS/SSS scheme was open from 06-03-2007 to 20-03-2007 and there is nothing on record to show that even oral request for withdrawal was made even before the scheme closed. The withdrawal was made only on 21-03-2007, by which time an acceptance was issued.

The Court further stated that the Labour Court, considering the evidence of workmen and other relevant documentary evidence, concluded that it was only three months after the employee was relieved and had accepted the benefits available under the VRS, that he objected to the scheme. The Court also pointed out that the employee, after five months, lodged his protest to say that he had accepted the amounts subject to his objection. This clearly was an afterthought.

With the afore-stated observations, the Court held that the Labour Court had judiciously exercised its jurisdiction while deciding the instant matter, therefore the High Court does not need to interfere with the Award. The instant petitions were thus dismissed.

[Gohil Rameshbhai Amarsinh v. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Guj 1304, decided on 15-09-2022]

Advocates who appeared in this case:

P.R. Thakkar, Advocate, for the Petitioner(s) No. 1;

J. P. Thakkar, Advocate, for the Petitioner(s) No. 1;

K. S. Nanavati, Sr. Counsel assisted by Pratik Bhatia for Nanavati Associates, Advocate, for the Respondent(s) No. 1.

Gujarat High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gujarat High Court: Nirzar S. Desai, J. quashed an FIR and its consequential proceedings which were registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 114 and 506(2) of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Respondent 2 (original complainant) had filed the above FIR stating that she got married with Anil R. Panchal and everything was good for 6 months and she delivered a baby girl but thereafter, as the job of the husband required him to stay at the place of job, he used to come once in a week to home and respondent 2 used to stay with her in laws. The present applicant, who happens to be son of maternal uncle of the husband of the complainant used to visit matrimonial home of the complainant and along with other family members, he used to taunt the complainant that she got married by cheating and she has not brought anything which would suit the reputation of the family of the husband in the society.

Advocate for the applicant submitted that barring one sentence involving the applicant, there is no allegation against the applicant in the FIR. The only allegation against the applicant is verbal taunting to the complainant and that also of absolutely general nature.

Advocate for the respondent 2, vehemently opposed the petition by submitting that because of pendency of this application and as the relief has been granted in favour of the applicant, the Investigating Officer is not filing charge sheet even against the husband. Additional Public Prosecutor could not point out any material against the applicant.

The Court after hearing the parties noted that in the entire FIR there is only one sentence whereby some role has been attributed to the applicant. Further considering the fact that the applicant happened to be the distant relative of the husband of the complainant, it seems that the impugned order is nothing but an attempt to falsely implicate the applicant as accused just with a view to harass the applicant.

The Court set aside the FIR and quashed the consequential proceedings holding that allegation against the applicant is purely of general in nature and considering the fact, that the applicant stays at a different place, the registration of impugned FIR against the applicant is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

[Paavanbhai Jagdishbhai Panchal v. State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC OnLine Guj 1127, decided on 04-08-2022]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Ishan Rajdev for Sanat B. Pandya, Advocates, for the Applicant 1;

Montubhai G Patel, Amit N Chaudhary, Advocate, for the Respondent 2;

Maithili Mehta, Advocate, for the Respondent 1.

*Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Gujarat High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts


Gujarat High Court: The Division Bench of S.H. Vora and Rajendra M. Sareen, JJ. dismissed a criminal appeal which was filed on being dissatisfied with the order passed by Special (POCSO) Judge for the offences under section 376 of Penal Code, 1860 and also, u/s 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO).

The case of the prosecution was that from 26-12-2015 to 27-12-2015, the accused forcibly entered in the house of the complainant, threatened the victim to kill her parents and thereupon, forcibly made intercourse with the victim and thus, committed the offence punishable u/s 376 of IPC and also u/s 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. After having found material against the respondent accused, charge-sheet came to be filed. After hearing both the sides and after analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial Judge acquitted the respondent-accused of the offences, for which he was tried, as the prosecution failed to prove the case.

The Court noted that the prosecution has not brought on record any authentic and reliable evidence as to wherefrom the contents of the birth certificate being obtained and placed on record and that the victim had not disclosed anything regarding the act of intercourse when her statement u/s 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. In nutshell, the victim did not shout for help, or her brothers disclosed anything though were outside home for tuition and attending the school nor she sought any help by using her mobile. Not only that, she did not also disclose to any of her relatives, who came at her home despite she was asked. Thus, the Court agreed with the trial judge’s finding that birth certificate of the victim and occurrence of the incident as alleged by the victim were not reliable and trustworthy.

The Court reproduced what was said in Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225 and found that in the present case APP has not been able to point out to as to how the findings recorded by the trial Court are perverse, contrary to material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable.

The Court finally relied on Rajesh Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of Bhaiyamiyan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2011) 6 SCC 394 where it was established that while dealing with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the learned trial Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset. It is further observed that High Court’s interference in such appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by the learned trial Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have taken a different view.

The criminal appeal was thus dismissed.

[State of Gujarat v. Pratap Prabhuram Devasi, R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 15092 of 2022, decided on 22-08-2022]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

CM Shah, Advocate, for the Applicant 1.

*Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Know thy Judge

“Scrutiny of Judicial Process by Half Truth Knowledgeable is real danger to Rule of Law”

— Justice JB Pardiwala at ‘2nd Justice HR Khanna Memorial National Symposium[1]

Justice Jamshed Burjor Pardiwala assumed office as a sitting judge of the Supreme Court of India on May 9th, 2022 and is in line to become the Chief Justice of India in 2028.

Did You Know? Justice Pardiwala is expected to serve a two-year and three months term as Chief Justice of India from May 3rd 2028 to August 11th 2030. [2]

Early Life and Education [3]

Justice JB Pardiwala was born in Mumbai on August 12th, 1965 into a family of lawyers having roots in Valsad located in the south of Gujarat. He is the great grandson of Navrojji Bhikaji Pardiwala who started his legal practice as early as in 1894, grandson of Cawasji Navrojji Pardiwala  who began his legal career in 1929 till 1958 and son of Burjor Cawasji Pardiwala who joined the Valsad Bar in 1955 following the same footsteps.

Justice J B Pardiwala, after attending St. Joseph Convent School, graduated from J P Arts College in 1985, and went on to obtain Bachelor of Law degree from K M Mujli College in 1988, all located in Valsad Gujarat.

♦Did You Know? His father Barjorji Cowasji Pardiwala was elected as an MLA from Valsad Assembly Constituency on an Indian National Congress ticket and even served as the Speaker of Gujarat Legislative Assembly from January 19, 1990 to March 16, 1990.


As an Advocate[4]

Justice Pardiwala began his legal career as an advocate from Gujarat High Court in January 1989 and eventually was elected to the State Bar Council in 1994 wherein he remained as a member till 2000. The year 2002 saw his appointment as Standing Counsel in the same High Court where he started his legal practice, Gujarat High Court, along with other subordinate courts.

♦Did You Know? If reports given by his colleagues are to be believed, Justice Pardiwala cleared approximately 1,200 pending matters during his tenure.

As a Judge

In High Court

Justice Pardiwala earned the coveted title of “Justice” when he began his judgeship on February 17th, 2011, having been appointed as Additional Judge of Gujarat High Court which was made permanent on January 28th, 2013. His tenure also saw him serving as the President of Gujarat State Judicial Academy. Justice Pardiwala mainly adjudicated matters related to Criminal and Civil Law, Services, and Indirect Taxation.

♦Did You Know? During his stint as a Judge at the Gujarat High Court, Pardiwala J authored 1,807 Judgments and was part of 2,195 Benches.

In Supreme Court

Justice Pardiwala was elevated to the Supreme Court on May 9th, 2022. He has experience of rendering judgments under his hat on multifarious issues like 400+ judgments on criminal matters, 250+ on service matters, around 200 on civil and direct taxation, 150+ on GST matters to name a few.[5]

♦Did You Know? Justice JB Pardiwala superseded many senior judges and chief justices of High Courts to make an entry in the Supreme Court in just 11 years of being elevated as a judge.[6]

His Top 18 Notable Judgments thus far are as follows: [List is inclusive of his term as a High Court Judge and Supreme Court judge]

‘Respect each other. Your children are watching you very closely’; Supreme Court advises parents in custody battle

The bench of AM Khanwilkar and JB Pardiwala*, JJ, in a matter relating to custody of two minor children, has advised the parents to respect each other and resolve the conflict respectfully, to give the children ‘a good foundation for the conflict that may, God forbid, arise in their own lives.’ Read more

[Rajeswari Chandrasekhar Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 885]

Trial Court not a ‘mere post office’; must apply its mind while framing charges: SC unimpressed with discharge of murder accused based on postmortem report only

Explaining the importance of the role of Trails Courts, especially, with respect to framing of charges, the bench of AM Khanwilkar, Abhay S. Oka and JB Pardiwala*, JJ has held that the trial court is enjoined with the duty to apply its mind at the time of framing of charge and should not act as a mere post office. The endorsement on the charge sheet presented by the police as it is without applying its mind and without recording brief reasons in support of its opinion is not countenanced by law.

“Ultimately, upon appreciation of the entire evidence on record at the end of the trial, the trial court may take one view or the other i.e., whether it is a case of murder or case of culpable homicide. But at the stage of framing of the charge, the trial court could not have reached such a conclusion merely relying upon the port mortem report on record.”  Read more

[Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 913]

Prophet Remark Row| Why Supreme Court stayed Nupur Sharma’s arrest?

After politician and lawyer Nupur Sharma approached the Court claiming that there is an imminent necessity for the Court to intervene and protect her life and liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, the bench of Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala, JJ has directed that no coercive action shall be taken against her pursuant to the impugned FIR(s)/complaint(s) or the FIR(s)/complaint(s) which may be registered/entertained in the future pertaining to the telecast dated 26-05-2022 on Times Now. Read more

[N.V. Sharma v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 895]

Illegal Coal Mining| Supreme Court stays Meghalaya HC’s order directing dismantling of existing coke plants

In a case concerning illegal coal mining in the State of Meghalaya, the Vacation Bench comprising Surya Kant and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ., stayed directions of the Meghalaya High Court directing the dismantling of existing coke plant(s). Read more

[JMK Coke Industry Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Meghalaya, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 783]

Maharashtra Political Crisis| Supreme Court refuses to stay Trust Vote; Uddhav Thakrey resigns as CM

The Vacation Bench of Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala, JJ gave a go ahead to the Special Session of the Maharashtra Vidhan Sabha convened on 30-0­6-­2022 for trust vote. Read more

[Sunil Prabhu v. Governor of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 776]

Can a wife be forced to cohabit and establish conjugal rights? Or can a decree do so? Gujarat High Court answers

The Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala* and Niral R. Mehta, JJ., while dealing with a matter regarding restitution of conjugal rights, stated that,

“Section 281 of the Muhammadan Law deals with the aspect of the restitution of conjugal rights but does not throw any light as to in what circumstances, a decree for restitution of conjugal rights can be granted or declined.”

Further, the Bench expressed that,

“A marriage between Mohammedans is a civil contract and a suit for restitution of conjugal rights is nothing more than an enforcement of the right to consortium under this contract.”

The present appeal was filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 by the original defendant-wife questioning the legality and validity of the order passed by the Family Court on suit instituted by respondent-husband for restitution of conjugal rights whereby the family court allowed the suit instituted by the husband directed the appellant-wife to go back to her matrimonial home and perform her marital obligations. Read more

[Jinnat Fatma Vajirbhai Ami v. Nishat Alimdbhai Polra, 2021 SCC OnLine Guj 2075]

Gujarat High Court| Will permanent alimony granted to a Muslim woman be conditional to her remarriage? Detailed report untangling the significance of ‘Permanent Alimony’ & ‘Periodical Maintenance’

In an instant appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 filed at the instance of the original defendant (husband) and was directed against the judgment and decree passed by Principal Judge, Ahemdabad for a decree of divorce under the provisions of Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala* and Vireshkumar B. Mayani, JJ., while addressing the issue of grant of permanent alimony to a Muslim Woman noted the significant difference between permanent alimony and periodical maintenance. Read more

[Tarif Rashidbhai Qureshi v. Asmabanu, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 711]

♦Did you know? Justice J B Pardiwala is a huge fan of Manna Dey, an internationally acclaimed, celebrated Indian playback singer, music director, and a musician and loves watching and playing cricket.[7]

Gujarat High Court | Two finger test violates the right of victim to privacy, physical and mental integrity and dignity; held unconstitutional

A Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala* and Bhargav D. Karia, JJ., while deciding the two clubbed appeals, held that,

“Two-finger test is unconstitutional. It violates the right of the victim to privacy, physical and mental integrity and dignity.” Read more

[State of Gujarat v. Rameshchandra Rambhai Panchal, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 114]

[Marital rape] Gujarat High Court: A husband cannot be permitted to treat his wife like a chattel and violate her dignity

While deciding the present case wherein the focal point was marital rape and unnatural carnal activity, J.B. Pardiwala, J., observed that a wife is not a chattel and a husband having sexual intercourse with his wife is not merely using a property, he is fulfilling a marital duty with a fellow human being with dignity equal to that he accords himself. He cannot be permitted to violate this dignity by coercing his wife to engage in a sexual act without her full and free consent. Furthermore, the Court urged that the time is ripe that the legislature intervenes and goes into the soul of the issue of marital rape as it is a serious matter which unfortunately is not attracting serious discussions at the end of the Government. Read more

[Nimeshbhai Bharatbhai Desai v. State of Gujarat,2018 SCC OnLine Guj 732]

Gujarat High Court |For the purposes of S. 498-A IPC, a former wife will not come under the category of “the relative of the husband”

In the instant application wherein, the applicant invoked the inherent power of the Court under Section 482 of CrPC thereby seeking quashment of proceedings under Section 498-A read with Section 114 IPC, J.B. Pardiwala, J., held that for the purposes of Section 498-A IPC, a former wife will not come under the category of the “relative of the husband”. Thus, even if the former wife is the cause of matrimonial disputes, she cannot be prosecuted under Section 498-A IPC. Read more

[Honeyben Ashokbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat,  2017 SCC OnLine Guj 1558]

Gujarat High Court | Pregnancy of above 20 weeks can be terminated if it serves the ‘best interest’ of pregnant girl

J.B. Pardiwala, J. allowed a writ application filed by a victim of rape for termination of her pregnancy, subject to her examination by two doctors to ensure that the termination can be carried out safely. Read more

[Pujaben Subedar Yadav v. State of Gujarat, 2017 SCC OnLine Guj 453]

Gujarat High Court |Those who have not allowed to change the Muslim personal law have done great disservice to the community; Gujarat High Court quashes FIR

In a case where an FIR was registered by the father of a Muslim girl aged 16 years, against a man alleging offence under Sections 363, 366 Penal Code, 1860 and Section 18 POCSO Act, and the instant application was filed seeking quashing the same FIR, J B Pardiwala J. perusing the Muslim Law in light of said facts showed disappointment for the lack of a codified Muslim law. In the instant case, the Judge remarked

“Sixteen years is not an age for a girl to get married. At this age, probably, a girl would not even clear her S.S.C. Exam. At times, I fail to understand how she would be able to go ahead in life. Most of the time, unfortunately, this type of marriage fails, and one day, the girl would come back to her parents. By that time, it is too late in her life to realize her mistake as it would be very difficult for the parents to get her again settled in life.”

“… as the social condition in the Nation and throughout the world continues to change, the reality of life is, that even without a code on personal law of Muslim insofar as the marriage is concerned, the child marriage is going into oblivion. Education, changing pattern of the family structure, the structure of the family in the context of reality of the world, and economic necessities are on their own precipitating the situation. The members of the community have realized the evil consequences of getting a Muslim girl married at a tendered age of 16 or 17 years”

The Court however quashed the charges under Sections 363 and 366 as there was no reason to believe Namira had been enticed into the union as Namira deposed before Court that she eloped and married the accused on her own free will and volition as she was in love with the applicant and vice versa.

[Yunusbhai Usmanbhai Shaikh v State of Gujarat, 2015 SCC OnLine Guj 6211]

Amendments to Section 80 HHC Income Tax Act, 1961 was challenged; Gujarat High Court rules amendments to apply prospectively; Retrospective provisions to be extended only if they benefit assesses

The petitioners filed a batch of civil appeals at the Gujarat High Court challenging newly inserted Amendments to Section 80 HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Under Section 80HHC, businesses could avail themselves of specific Income Tax deductions—and had even been incentivized to do so by earlier governments. This benefit had been extended to them from Assessment Year 1988-89 to Assessment Year 2004-05. The petitioners contended that the Amendments sought to retrospectively remove these deduction benefits after 31st March, 2004—while also retrospectively granting them to another group of assesses for the same assessment period. This created two arbitrary subgroups within the same class of businesses, violating the Right to Equality and the Right to practice any profession.

The question was raised before the Court that whether the severable parts of the 3rd and 4th proviso to Section 80 HHC (3) Income Tax Act, 1961 are ultra vires Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) Constitution of India, a Division Bench of Bhaskar Bhattacharya and J B Pardiwala JJ. noted that if a valid piece of legislation is wrongly interpreted by the Tribunal, the aggrieved party should move to a higher judicial forum for correct interpretation. The Court thus held that the impugned amendment is violative for its retrospective operation in order to overcome the decision of the Tribunal, and at the same time, for depriving the benefit earlier granted to a class of the assesses whose assessments were still pending although such benefit will be available to the assesses whose assessments have already been concluded. In other words, in this type of substantive amendment, retrospective operation can be given only if it is for the benefit of the assesses but not in a case where it affects even a fewer section of the assesses.

[Avani Exports v Commissioner of Income Tax Rajkot, 2012 SCC OnLine Guj 3837]

♦Did You Know? JB Pardiwala is the 4th Parsi Judge to serve at the Supreme Court and first minority High Court judge to be appointed in 5 years after Justice Abdul Nazeer[8]

Notable Judgments during COVID

[Midnight Hearing] Gujarat High Court | Situation of Ahmedabad on account of COVID-19 cannot be compared with situation in Puri or in the State of Orissa (sic Odisha); No Rath Yatra at Ahmedabad

A Division Bench of Vikram Nath, CJ* and J.B. Pardiwala, J., rejected all the civil applications in a midnight hearing, filed with regard to granting permission for Rath Yatra on the ground that Supreme Court allowed the Yatra in restricted manner by modifying its earlier order.   Read more

[Mahant Akhileshwardasji Ramlakhandasji v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 917]

Gujarat High Court | “If State would not have been doing anything, we all would have been dead”: Court berates politicizing of COVID-19 situation while at the same time reminding the State of its Constitutional obligations

A Division Bench of Vikram Nath, CJ and J.B. Pardiwala, J.* while addressing certain issues with regard to COVID-19, stated that,

“Healthcare access is the ability to obtain healthcare services such as prevention, diagnosis, treatment and management of diseases, illness, disorders, and other health ­impacting conditions. For healthcare to be accessible it must be affordable and convenient.” Read more

[Suo Motu v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 836]

Gujarat High Court | Gujarat Govt given directions to take stern and decisive actions in matters connected to private hospitals, migrants, protection of doctors and overall management of Covid-19 crisis

Taking suo motu cognizance of the way private hospitals in the State of Gujarat are indulging in blatant profiteering in the time of Covid-19, the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and Ilesh J. Vora, JJ., gave important directions to the State Government in relation to regulation of private hospitals; proper arrangement of sending the migrants to their homes and overall management of every aspect of governance to deal with one of the greatest humanitarian crisis the world has seen. The Court also expressed its deep respect for all the frontline ‘corona warriors’ for showing exemplary dedication towards public welfare. Read more

[Suo Motu v. State of Gujarat, Writ Petition (PIL) No. 42/2020, decided on 22-05-2020]

[COVID-19] Gujarat High Court | No Rath Yatra shall be carried out at Ahmedabad; No activities secular or religious associated with Rath Yatra to be conducted

A Division Bench of Vikram Nath, CJ* and J.B. Pardiwala, J., held that in view of present times of outbreak of COVID-19, there shall be no Rath Yatra at Ahmedabad and any of the districts in the State of Gujarat. Read more

[Hitesh Kumar Vittalbhai Chavda v. Shri Jagannathji Mandir Trust, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 910]

Gujarat High Court | “What is most essential as of now is a more humane approach or touch”; State Authorities should ensure that its citizens do not die of starvation

A Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala* and Ilesh J. Vora, JJ., took suo motu cognizance of certain issues like the food, shelter for migrant workers, travel to hometowns, etc.

The court took notice of a few news items and took suo motu cognizance of the same, wherein the following was noted:

“Caught in the Covid­19 crossfire in pain? Grin and bear because cops won’t let you meet your doc with the police getting stricter in ensuring that people do not step out of their houses during the lockdown, patients with genuine ailments are suffering as they are at the receiving end”  

Read more

[Suo motu v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 718]


†Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has put this report together 

*Judge, who has authored the judgment









Gujarat High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts


Gujarat High Court: Biren Vaishnav, J. allowed a petition reiterating that a Government employee is entitled to avail the benefits of medical facilities without any fetters, and that their claim for reimbursement should not be denied by the State mechanically.

The petitioner prayed that he had undergone Angioplasty, and was entitled to full reimbursement of Rs.,1,76,757/-.

Counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of the Court to a representation made by the petitioner on 23-01-2019 to the Regional Information Officer(Respondent 3). The Petitioner had incurred an expense of Rs.,1,76,757 for her medical treatment. She claimed that part reimbursement worth Rs.62,100 for her surgery at Rajasthan Hospital was misconceived. It was submitted that the petitioner should be reimbursed the remaining amount of Rs.1,14,656/-.

Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents vehemently opposed the stand of the petitioner for reimbursement of the balance amount of Rs.1,14,656/- .

The Court relied on the Coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Chanrakant Kantilal Dave v. State of Gujarat, Special Civil Application No.2736 of 2013, decided on 18-09-2018 which had similar set of facts and its decision was based on the judgment principles of Shiva Kant Jha v. Union of India, (2018) 16 SCC 187. The Court reiterated:

“The right to medical claim cannot be denied merely because the name of the hospital is not included in the Government Order. The real test must be the factum of treatment. Before any medical claim is honoured, the authorities are bound to ensure as to whether the claimant had actually taken treatment and the factum of treatment is supported by records duly certified by Doctors/Hospitals concerned. Once, it is established, the claim cannot be denied on technical grounds.”

Keeping in mind the abovementioned case laws and principles the petition was allowed with a direction to respondents to reimburse the balance amount of Rs.1,14,656/- to the petitioner together with the interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of petition till its realization within a period of ten weeks.

[Gulamkadar Kasambhai Shaikh v. State of Gujarat, R/Special Civil Application No. 6345 of 2019, decided on 18-07-2022]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Mr Nayan D Parekh, Advocate, for the Petitioner 1;

Mr Utkarsh Sharma, AGP, Advocate, for the Respondent 1,2,3.

*Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The Division Bench of Hemant Gupta* and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ., held that non-supply of satisfaction note to the assessee will not make the whole act of search and seizure contrary to Section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961.  

Reversing the impugned decision of the Gujarat High Court, the Court held that formation of reasons to believe being an administrative act, the courts have only limited power to determine whether such reasons are whimsical or malafide, the sufficiency of the grounds which induced the competent authority to act is not a justiciable issue to be determined by courts. 

Factual Backdrop  

The appellant-assessee had transferred a sum of Rs. 10 crores to M/s Goan Recreation Clubs Private Ltd. during the financial year 2016-17. He had secured the loan by way of a mortgage of the property situated in North Goa. Thereafter, the assessee became the Director of the Company from 18-05-2016 to 23-06-2016. Later on, Rs. 10 crores were repaid and the mortgage was released on 10-07-2017. In the income-tax return filed by the assessee for that financial year, he had shown an interest income of Rs.42,51,946 which had been taxed as well. 

In the above backdrop, the Revenue had started a search and seizure operation against the assessee, suspecting that unaccounted black money was involved in the transaction since the Company stepped into the business of gaming and entertainment and launched a casino in Goa without having any adequate capital. Further, the company had made cash deposits of a total Rs.13,79,10,500 soon after demonetization.  

Grievances of the Assessee  

The assessee challenged the act of authorization for search and seizure before the Gujarat High Court on the ground that it was a fishing enquiry and the conditions precedent as specified in Section 132 of the Act were not satisfied. The assessee contended that he was not supplied with the satisfaction note as required to be disclosed in terms of Explanation to Section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961  inserted by the Finance Act, 2017 with retrospective effect i.e., on 01-04-1962.  

Findings of the High Court 

The High Court found that none of the reasons to believe to issue authorization met the requirement of Section 132(1)(a), (b) and (c), hence the warrant of authorization dated 07-08-2018 issued under Section 132 of the Act was quashed. Consequently, all actions taken pursuant to such a warrant of authorization were rendered invalid.  

Whether the Revenue has Reasons to Believe 

The Revenue submitted that it was not expected to disclose to any of the members directly or indirectly involved in the cob-web of financial transactions with the core groups, viz. Sarju Sharma and associated group of companies as any inkling of action were likely to compromise the confidentiality and secrecy of the case.   

The Court noted that the detailed satisfaction note showed multiple entries in the account books of Sarju Sharma and others. Further, manner of Sarju Sharma who was either in Siliguri (West Bengal) or in Goa contacting the assessee in Ahmedabad for a loan of Rs.10 crores did not appear to be a normal transaction. Subsequent repayment of mortgage and the interest income reflected in the relevant assessment year appeared to be the steps taken by the assessee to give a colour of genuineness. Therefore, the Court opined that the Revenue had a reason to suspect that such entry was an accommodation entry and the cobweb of entries required to be unravelled including the trail of the money paid by the assessee. The Court observed, 

“The intention of the Revenue was to un-layer the layering of money which is suspected to be done by the assessee since the accommodation entry is a common modus operandi to bring the unaccounted black money to books for a brief period.”

Noting that the Revenue suspected that the investment of Rs.10 crores for a short period was not for earning interest income as the same was repaid in the same assessment year and intended to investigate the fund trail of the money paid by the assessee, the Court opined that such belief was not out of hat or whimsical.  

“The test to consider the justiciability of belief is whether such reasons are totally irrelevant or whimsical. the Court has to examine whether the reason to believe is in good faith; it cannot merely be pretence.”

Considering the reasons recorded in the satisfaction note including the investment made by the assessee for a brief period and that investment was alleged to be an accommodation entry, the Court said that it cannot be said to be such which does not satisfy the prerequisite conditions of Section 132(1) of the Act. 

With regard to non-supply of satisfaction notice to the assessee, the Court opined that such a notice would have been sufficient notice of the material against the Company and its group, to defeat the entire attempt to unearth the cobweb of the accounts by the Company and its associates. The Court opined that the Revenue may fail or succeed but that would not be a reason to interfere with the search and seizure operations at the threshold, denying an opportunity to the Revenue to unravel the mystery surrounding the investment made by the assessee.  

Hence, the Court held that the view of the High Court that the authorization to search the premises of the assessee was invalid, could not be sustained.  

Findings and Conclusion  

With a view to restate and elaborate the principles in exercising the writ jurisdiction in the matter of search and seizure under Section 132 of the Act the Court made the following observations:  

  1. The formation of opinion and the reasons to believe recorded is not a judicial or quasi-judicial function but administrative in character;  
  2. The information must be in possession of the authorised official on the basis of the material and the opinion must be honest and bona fide. It cannot be merely pretence 
  3. The authority must have a reasonable belief that the person concerned has omitted or failed to produce books of accounts or other documents; or such person is in possession of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article indicating non-disclosed income;  
  4. The Courts can examine whether the reasons recorded are actuated by mala fides or on a mere pretence and that no extraneous or irrelevant material has been considered;  
  5. The question as to whether such reasons are adequate or not is not a matter for the Court to review in a writ petition. The sufficiency of the grounds which induced the competent authority to act is not a justiciable issue;  
  6. The relevance of the reasons for the formation of the belief is to be tested by the judicial restraint as in administrative action as the Court does not sit as a Court of appeal but merely reviews the manner. The Court shall not examine the sufficiency or adequacy thereof;  
  7. In terms of the explanation inserted by the Finance Act, 2017 with retrospective effect from 01-04-1962, such reasons to believe as recorded by income tax authorities are not required to be disclosed to any person or any authority or the Appellate Tribunal.  

In view of the above, the Court concluded that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the authorization of search. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the impugned order was set aside. The Revenue was held to be at liberty to proceed against the assessee in accordance with the law.  

[Director of Income Tax (Investigation) v. Laljibhai Kanjibhai Mandalia, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 872, decided on 13-07-2022] 

*Judgment by: Justice Hemant Gupta 

Appearance by:  

For the Appellant: Balbir Singh, Additional Solicitor General  

For the Respondent: Datar, Senior Advocate  

Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has put this report together 

Gujarat High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gujarat High Court: S.H. Vora, J. rejected a bail application filed in relation to the FIR registered for the offence punishable under sections 15, 15(C), 25, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

As per FIR, the police received secret information that inside an abandoned petrol pump of Essar Company, several persons were transferring liquor from one truck to other under the garb of transferring onion. Therefore, the police called for independent witnesses to raid the tipped place. Accused 1 disclosed to the police that he was driver of Eicher Truck, and he was not transporting liquor but poppy straw. The police found 69 plastic bags of poppy straw whose estimated value came at Rs.16,62,624/-. Applicant was therefore arrested.

Advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant has not been named in the FIR and he was not seen at the scene of offence or nearby vicinity and was also not in conscious possession of contraband substance. He further submitted that the applicant has not instigated or engaged himself with one or more other accused persons in conspiracy or intentionally aided or by illegal omission to commit offence under NDPS Act. It was also contended that the co-accused were enlarged on bail and considering the fact that the applicant is aged 66 years, he may be enlarged on bail too.

APP while opposing bail application submitted that the applicant happened to be one of the owner of the land bearing survey no.349 paiki 1/1 situated at Village Mahuva and partner of dealership agreement of Essar Petrol Pump and holding dealership agreement of abandoned petrol pump. It was submitted that the applicant and other accused were his relatives and they were in constant touch with each other and thus, allowed the premises to be used for commission of offence and therefore, the applicant is equally responsible for the offence were Poppy straw weighing 1371.72 kg is seized by the police.

The Court noted that it is admitted fact that contraband substance seized is of commercial quantity and role of the co-accused who are enlarged on bail are not identical inasmuch as they are not owner of the land nor partner of dealership agreement but they are implicated on the basis of statement of co-accused and call details. The Court pointed that petrol pump dealership agreement was already expired and huge cultivation of poppy straw was going on the land owned by the applicant and it was used for commission of offence under NDPS Act.

The Court opined that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail either on account of his age or grant of bail in favour of aforesaid two co-accused. The bail application was rejected considering the contraband substance seized as aforesaid and provisions contained in section 25 and 37 of the NDPS Act.

[Narughar Songhar Goswami v. State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC OnLine Guj 829, decided on 01-07-2022]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Mr Ronith Joy for Mr Utkarsh J Dave for the Applicant 1;

Ms CM Shah, APP for the Respondent 1.

*Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Gujarat High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts


Gujarat High Court: Biren Vaishnav, J. allowed petitions which were filed challenging the awards of the Labour Court ordering reinstatement of the employees of Patan Nagarpalika who had raised the issue of early retirement age.

The respondent (now deceased) who was working with the Patan Nagarpalika had raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court contending that the stand of the petitioner — Nagarpalika in retiring them at the age of 55 on and from 30-09-2007 is bad. It was his case that he was entitled to continue till the age of 60. The stand of the Municipality before the Labour Court was that the Municipality had power to retire a municipal servant at any time on or after he attains the age of 55 years on giving him three months’ notice according to Rule 5 of the Rules framed under Section 271 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963. The Labour Court had allowed the petitions and ordered reinstatement.

The Court held that it was within the powers of the municipality in exercise of powers under Section 271 of Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 to frame rules. Proviso to Rule 5 indicates that the action can be taken by a municipality against an employee where employee reaches the age of superannuation. This, of course, is subject to he being given three months notice and notice pay in lieu thereof.

Relying on the decision of a Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in context of the same municipality dated 03-03-2020 rendered in Special Civil Application Nos. 22332 of 2005, the Court affirmed that the section gives specific powers to make rules and the operation of Rule 5 and consequential retirement was held valid. The petitions were allowed finding that there was sufficient compliance of Rule 5, inasmuch as, notice of three months was given.

[Chief Officer v. Solanki Kanubhai Danabhai (deceased), R/Special Civil Application No. 1697 of 2020, decided on 27-06-2022]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Ms Dhara Shah, Advocate, for the Petitioner 1;

Mr Prabhakar Upadyay, Advocate, for the Respondent 1.

*Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Gujarat High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gujarat High Court: A.S. Supehia, J. allowed a petition which was filed by the petitioner challenging the orders passed by the District Magistrate rejecting the license under the Arms Act, 1959 (“the Arms Act”) for self-protection and order passed in appeal by the Additional Secretary Home Department in State Government confirming the previous order.

The petitioner had applied for obtaining arms license for self-protection under the provision of the Arms Act with all the necessary documents. Nothing adverse had been found against the petitioner in the reports prepared by District Superintendent of Police and Mamlatdar which was sought by respondent 2.

Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that both the authorities have not appreciated the true facts of the case and the reports issued in favour of the petitioner, while rejecting the application of the petitioner. It was also asserted by him that the petitioner needed the arm since he dealt with the mining business and he was also doing contract business, which required lot of travelling with cash.

The Court noted that nothing adverse regarding his involvement in any of the illegal activities or with regard to his character had been opined in the reports. The Court observed that the District Magistrate, while rejecting the application of the petitioner as well the appellate authority, while dealing with the appeal of the petitioner has passed the orders being oblivious to the provisions of Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959, which pertains to the refusal of the license.

The Court while allowing the writ petition stated that it is not the case of the State authorities that the petitioner has been found not worthy of the license on the grounds mentioned under Section 14 of the Arms Act. The grounds of rejection nowhere indicate that the petitioner was not entitled for the arms license and he was treated to be unfit for the license under the Arms Act. Respondent 2 was directed to issue license to the petitioner pursuant to the application.

[Devshibhai Raydebhai Gadher v. State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC OnLine Guj 757, decided on 13-06-2022]

Mr Rutviz S Oza for the Petitioner 1

Mr Sahil Trivedi, AGP for the Respondent 1, 2

*Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gujarat High Court: Biren Vaishnav, J., reiterated that, interest on delayed payment of gratuity is mandatory and not discretionary.

The petitioner had prayed for a declaration that the respondent’s action in not paying the entire amount of Rs 10 lakhs towards gratuity to the petitioner was arbitrary. Hence, a direction was sought that respondents be directed to pay the remaining amount of gratuity to the petitioner along with 18% interest from the date of his retirement.

Analysis and Decision

High Court expressed that, in the Supreme Court decision of H. Gangahanume Gowda v. Karnataka Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd., (2003) 3 SCC 40, it was decided that the interest on delayed payment of gratuity is mandatory and not discretionary. When it is not the case of the respondent that the delay in the payment of gratuity was due to the fault of the employee and that it had obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on that ground, the respondent had been directed to pay interest @ 10% on the amount of gratuity to which the appellant is entitled from the date it became payable till the date of payment of the gratuity amount. 

Hence, Bench stated that the present case was covered by the Supreme Court’s decision as stated above.

Therefore, Court directed the respondents to pay the petitioner the amount of gratuity of Rs 10 lakhs within a period of 10 weeks, and since the petitioner was superannuated in 2013 and the gratuity amount had been wrongfully withheld, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% from the date of his superannuation till the date of actual payment. [Ashvinkumar Ramniklal Jani v. State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC OnLine Guj 575, decided on 19-4-2022]

Advocates before the Court:

MR JAYRAJ CHAUHAN(2966) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1

MR MUKESH N VAIDYA(5197) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1

MR MUKUND M DESAI(286) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1

MS.SURBHI BHATI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3

NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 4

Appointments & TransfersNews

President appoints Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court and Justice Jamshed Burjor Pardiwala, Judge of the Gujarat High Court to be Judges of the Supreme Court of India.

Ministry of Law and Justice

[Notification dt. 7-5-2022]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the elevation of the following Chief Justice / Judge of the High Courts, as Judges in the Supreme Court:

1. Mr Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Chief Justice, Gauhati High Court, (PHC: Uttarakhand); and

2. Mr Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Judge, Gujarat High Court

Supreme Court Collegium

[Statement dt. 5-5-2022]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

In 2013, Gujarat High Court addressed a case wherein a son audaciously suggested that his parents should move to and stay in an old-age home instead of claiming an order of “care, protection and maintenance”.

The petitioner who was the father along with his wife used to live in the village and were not keeping well, health-wise, hence they claimed in the Court that their son shall be directed to provide proper maintenance, care and protection.

Father alleged that his younger son does not help him and his wife in any manner and he also does not provide for their maintenance.

From the opposing application, it emerged that the expenditure towards medicines of the applicant and his wife were being reimbursed, however, the applicant had emphatically denied and asserted that the said expenses are not being reimbursed and he has to meet with all expenses including the expenditure towards medicines for himself and his wife out of his pension-amount and he does not have any other income/source of income except pension.

It was not in dispute that the respondent does not stay with his parents and from the material on record it does not come out that he is extending any care or help to his parents and/or he does not provide for, or does not even contribute anything for, their maintenance.

High Court noted that the father does not receive any monetary help from his children and he does not have any other income to maintain himself and his wife to meet with their regular domestic expenses as well as the expenditure towards their medicines.

Additionally, the Court expressed that the applicant and his wife do not get any physical or emotional care, protection and support or any monetary help from their two children and their families.

Section 4 of the Act prescribes that the obligation of the children or the relative to maintain parent or senior citizen extends to the “needs” or parent’s or senior citizens so that he/they may lad a “normal life” and the conferment of the right to claim maintenance under the Act is not restricted qua only biological or adopted children but it is also extended, in specified cases, qua relative/s as well.

The above-said obligation was not restricted only to provide bare minimum maintenance, but the Act imposes obligation to also provide “all needs” of such citizen so that he may lead a “normal life” and to also provide food, clothing, residence, medical attendance and treatment.

The above-said expression ‘lead normal life’ would include all requirements of parents, i.e., physical needs as well as emotional needs.

It is pertinent that the pecuniary limit as regards the amount which can be awarded as maintenance allowance does not regulate the provision under section 4 of the Act and the provision under section 4 of the Act is not dependent on section 9 or pecuniary limit prescribed by the Rule 5 of the said Rules. It is neither the scope nor effect nor object of section 9 to regulate and/or restrict the scope or operation of Section 4 of the Act.

Parents’ right to Maintenance

High Court expressed that,

The right of the parent or senior citizen to make an application for maintenance, if such parent or senior citizen is not able to maintain himself from his own earning cannot be denied/taken away or curtailed by applying and superimposing the pecuniary limit prescribed for the purpose of Section 9 of the Act.

Further, with regard to awarding more amount, Court held that the applicant has to satisfy the competent authority that having regard to his requirements to lead a normal life as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act, his income is insufficient and he needs more amount/assistance from his children so that he can maintain himself and lead a normal life.

“…merely because, income of the applicant appears to be more than the pecuniary limit prescribed for the purpose of section 9 of the Act, the authority cannot refuse to entertain and decide an application and pass appropriate order.”

The petition was accepted and allowed.[Parmar Dahyabhai Hemabhai v. Parmar Prakashbhai Dahyabhai, 2013 SCC OnLine Guj 749, decided on 4-3-2013]

Advocates before the Court:

MR YH MOTIRAMANI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS E.SHAILAJA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1

Know thy Judge

“There should be effort to find out cases where there is possibility of settlement of cases…Serious thinking on ADR is required.”

                                                                                       Justice R. Subhash Reddy[1]

As Justice Ramayyagari Subhash Reddy prepares to bid adieu, we endeavor to take you to a trip down the memory lane of his tenure in the Supreme Court.

Travelling Back in Time 

Justice R. Subhash Reddy was born on 5th January, 1957 in an agricultural family in Kamaram Village of Chinna Shankarampet Mandal, Medak District. He did his primary education in Upper Primary School and Higher Education from Zilla Parishad High School, Sankarampet, and graduation from Andhra Vidyalaya College, Hyderabad and obtained his Degree in Law from the University College of Law, Osmania University, Hyderabad.[2]

♦Did You Know? Justice R. Subhash Reddy has deep interest in matters of philosophy, culture, music and education.[3]                                    

Career at a Glance    


Advocate- 1980-2002 

Justice Reddy enrolled as an advocate on 30-10-1980 in Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh and joined the Chambers of Sri Justice B. Subhashan Reddy. Post enrolment, Justice Reddy practised at Andhra Pradesh High Court, Civil Court Tribunals and Supreme Court.  

Justice Reddy’s stint as an advocate stretched over a staggering period of 22 years during which he argued on issues related to Civil, Criminal, Constitutional, Revenue, Taxation, Labour, Company and Service matters in both original and appellate side. His specialisation however was in Constitutional Law.[4] Justice Subhash Reddy was also elected unanimously as the President of the AP High Court Advocates Association for the year 2001-2002.[5]

♦Did you Know? He was Standing Counsel for premier institutions like S.V. University and Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University.[6]

The High Courts- Elevation as a Judge- 2002-2018 

On 2nd February, 2002, Justice Reddy was elevated as an Additional Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and sworn in as Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on 24-06-2004. He was later elevated as Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court on 13th February, 2016.[7]

Notable High Court Decisions  

Andhra Pradesh High Court/ Hyderabad High Court

A.P. Civil Liberties Committee (APCLC) v. Govt. of A.P., 2009 SCC OnLine AP 50 

The 5 Judge Bench of Goda Raghuram, V.V.S. Rao, R. Subhash Reddy, Ramesh Ranghanathan and G. Bhavani Prasad, JJ., held that where a police officer causes death of a person, acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duties or in self-defense as the case may be, the first information relating to such circumstance (even when by a Police/Public Official; whether an alleged perpetrator is named or not) shall be recorded and registered as FIR, enumerating the relevant provisions of Law, (u/Sec. 154(1) Cr.P.C.) and shall be investigated (u/Sec. 156/157 Cr.P.C.).

K. Swarna Kumari v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2006 SCC OnLine AP 97

Re. Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, Rules 20(4) and 45(1) proviso, Full Bench of the Court comprising of T. Meena Kumari, A. Gopal Reddy, Goda Raghuram, T.CH. Surya Rao and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ., held, violation of principles of natural justice by itself is not sufficient to invalidate punishment unless a clear prejudice suffered thereby is pleaded and demonstrated.  

Gangaraju Sowmini (Dr.) v. Alavala Sudhakar Reddy, 2016 SCC OnLine Hyd 430 

The 3-Judge Bench of Before R. Subhash Reddy, G. Chandraiah and Nooty Ramamohana Rao, JJ., held that as per the language under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w. Rule 2(g) of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, even the legal representatives who are non-dependants can also lay a claim for payment of compensation by making application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Gujarat High Court 

Bar Council of Gujarat v. Jalpa Pradeepbhai Desai, 2016 SCC OnLine Guj 5080 

While dismissing an appeal filed by a respondent petitioner who applied for a certificate of practice to the Bar Council of Gujarat while simultaneously rendering services at a corporation, the Division Bench of R. Subhash Reddy, CJ and Vipul M. Pancholi, J said that an advocate who works as a full-time salaried employee of any person, government, firm, corporation or concern, is not entitled to grant of certificate of practice under the Advocates Act, 1961 in view of Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules.

Read More

Prati Shailesh Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2016 SCC OnLine Guj 1909 

While dealing with the constitutionality of Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Colleges or Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2016, the bench comprising of R. Subhash Reddy, CJ and Vipul M. Pancholi, J. quashed the Ordinance to the extent of removing genuine NRI/NRI proper i.e. children or wards of the Non-Resident Indian from the quota in medical colleges.

Read More

Dayaram Khemkaran Verma v. State of Gujarat, 2016 SCC OnLine Guj 1821

While dealing with the constitutionality of the Gujarat Unreserved Economically Weaker Sections (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions in the State and of Appointments and Posts in services under the State) Ordinance, 2016 providing reservation of seats in the educational institutions in the State and of appointments and posts in the services under the State in favour of the Economically Weaker Sections of unreserved categories, the bench comprising of R. Subhash Reddy CJ., and Vipul M. Pancholi, J. held the Ordinance unconstitutional and contrary to fundamental rights.

Read More                                 


On 1st November, 2018, the Ministry of Law and Justice notified the appointment of Justice R. Subhash Reddy to the Supreme Court of India by the President[8] and on 2nd November, 2018, Justice Reddy assumed charge of his office as a Judge of Supreme Court.[9]

♦Did You Know? Justice Reddy is the first Judge from the newly carved State of Telangana to become a Judge of the Supreme Court.[10] 

 Notable Judgments 

Kantaru Rajeevaru (Right to Religion, In re-9 J.) v. Indian Young Lawyers Assn., (2020) 2 SCC 52 

The 9-judge bench of SA Bobde, CJ and R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan, L Nageswara Rao, M M Shantanagoudar, S A Nazeer, R Subhash Reddy, B R Gavai and Surya Kant, JJ, while framing seven issues in the Sabrimala reference, opined that the same can be refered to a larger bench in its Review jurisdiction.

Read More

Shah Faesal v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 1 

In a writ petition filled under Article 32 of the Constitution of India pertaining to two Constitution Orders issued by the President of India in exercise of his powers under Article 370 of the Constitution of India, a Full judge Constitution bench of NV Ramana, SK Kaul, R. Subhash Reddy, BR Gavai and Surya Kant, JJ, held that no cause was made out to refer the matter to a larger bench as there is no conflict between the judgments in the Prem Nath Kaul v. State of J & K, AIR 1959 SC 749 and the Sampat Prakash v. State of J & K, AIR 1970 SC 1118. The Court observed that-

Judgments cannot be interpreted in a vacuum, separate from their facts and context. Observations made in a judgment cannot be selectively picked in order to give them a particular meaning.”

Read More 

Foundation for Media Professionals v. UT of J&K, (2020) 5 SCC 746

“National security concerns and human rights must be reasonably and defensibly adjusted with one another, in line with the constitutional principles.” 

A 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, R Subhash Reddy and BR Gavai JJ., observed that

While it might be desirable and convenient to have better internet in the present circumstances, wherein there is a world wide pandemic and a national lockdown. However, the fact that outside forces are trying to infiltrate the borders and destabilize the integrity of the nation, as well as cause incidents resulting in the death of innocent citizens and security forces every day cannot be ignored.” 

and directed the constitution of a Special Committee comprising Secretaries of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and Department of Communications, Ministry of Communications and the Chief Secretary of Jammu & Kashmir to review 4G connectivity in Jammu & Kashmir as 2G service available in the Union Territory is not sufficient for education and business purposes.

Read More…

Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, 

The Bench of Indu Malhotra and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ., framed guidelines on the issue of maintenance of wife, covering overlapping jurisdiction under different enactments for payment of maintenance, payment of Interim Maintenance, the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance, the date from which maintenance is to be awarded, and enforcement of orders of maintenance.

Read More

R. Natarajan v. State of T.N., (2021) 7 SCC 204

In an appeal regarding dowry death case the Division Bench of Navin Sinha and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ., granted acquittal to an old aged couple. Opining that the Courts below had failed to consider the evidences available on the standard of “beyond reasonable doubt” The Bench stated,

“Conviction of the appellants was not maintainable on a probability in absence of direct evidence. The benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the appellants.”

Read More

State of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph, (2021) 9 SCC 208

Dealing with the issue relating to the right of promotion under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, the bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ., held that a person with disability should be considered for promotion along with other persons working in the feeder cadre. The Court explained that the mandate of Section 32 of the 1995 Act enjoins the government to identify posts that can be filled up with persons with disability. Thus, even posts in promotional cadre have to be identified for PwD and such posts have to be reserved for PwD. The identification of such posts is no doubt a prerequisite for reservation in promotion for PwD.

Read More 

Sk. Ahmed v. State of Telangana, (2021) 9 SCC 59

The bench of Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ., laid down the essential ingredients required to be proved by prosecution to convict an accused under Section 364A IPC, i.e. kidnapping for ransom.

Read More

Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637

“Liberty and security have always been at loggerheads. The question before us, simply put, is what do we need more, liberty or security?” 

A 3-judge bench comprising of NV Ramana, R Subhash Reddy and BR Gavai JJ, directed the J&K administration to review all orders imposing curbs on telecom and internet services in the state and put them in public domain.

The Court held that the freedom of speech and expression and freedom to carry on any trade, business or occupation over the medium of internet is embodied under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

The Court also observed that suspension of the internet should only be for a reasonable duration and periodic review should be done on it. The Prohibitory orders  passed under Section 144 CrPC cannot be imposed to suppress legitimate expression of opinion or grievance or exercise of any democratic rights.

As emergency does not shield the actions of Government completely; disagreement does not justify destabilisation; the beacon of rule of law shines always.”

Read More…

Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India [EWS Reservation], 2020 SCC OnLine SC 624

Without looking into the merit of the case on the validity of impugned amendments i.e. Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 which provides for grant of 10% quota to Economically Weaker Sections (EWSs) in jobs and admissions in the general category, a 3-judge bench comprising of S.A. Bobde CJ., R. Subhash Reddy and B.R. Gavai JJ., only examined whether the petitions involve a substantial question of law or not.

The Court held that the said amendments run contrary to the judgment in case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 as it exceeds the ceiling cap of 50%, therefore, involves a substantial question of law which is to be examined by a Bench of 5-Judges as per Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India read with Order XXXVIII Rule 1(1) of the Supreme Court of Rules, 2013.

Whether the impugned Amendment Act violates basic structure of the Constitution, by applying the tests of ‘width’ and ‘identity’ with reference to equality provisions of the Constitution, is a matter which constitutes substantial question of law within the meaning of the provisions as referred above. Further, on the plea of ceiling of 50% for affirmative action, it is the case of the respondent-Union of India that though ordinarily 50% is the rule but same will not prevent to amend the Constitution itself in view of the existing special circumstances to uplift the members of the society belonging to economically weaker sections.

Read More… 

Abhilasha v. Parkash, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 736 

“The maintenance as contemplated under Act, 1956 is a larger concept as compared to concept of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.” 

A 3-judge bench of Ashok Bhushan, R Subash Reddy and MR Shah, JJ., held that an unmarried Hindu daughter can claim maintenance from her father till she is married, relying on Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956, provided she pleads and proves that she is unable to maintain herself.

The right of unmarried daughter under Section 20 to claim maintenance from her father when she is unable to maintain herself is absolute and the right given to unmarried daughter under Section 20 is right granted under personal law, which can very well be enforced by her against her father.” 

The Court upheld the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class as well as learned Additional Magistrate because the application was filed under Section 125 CrPC and while deciding proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, Judicial Magistrate First Class could not have exercised the jurisdiction under Section 20(3) of Act, 1956.

Read More…

Praneeth K v. University Grants Commission, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 688 

While upholding the validity of the revised University Grants Commission (UGC) guidelines dated July 6, 2020, a 3-judge bench of Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy and MR Shah, JJ., held that the State/State Disaster Management Authority’s decision to promote the students in the final year/terminal semester on the basis of previous performance and internal assessment is beyond the jurisdiction of Disaster Management Act, 2005 and they cannot promote students without holding final year university examinations amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

When the State Disaster Management Authority and State Government take a decision that for mitigation or prevention of disaster it is not possible to hold physical examination in the State, the said decision was within the four corners of Disaster Management Act, 2005. However, the decision of the Disaster Management Authority or the State Government that students should be promoted without appearing in the final year/terminal semester examination, is not within the domain of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

Read More… 

Rakesh Kumar Agarwalla v. National Law School of India University, (2021) 1 SCC 539 

 “Different National Law Universities have been established by different statues and have statutory functions and obligations to achieve a common purpose and to give a boost to legal education in the country.” 

A 3-judge bench of Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy and MR Shah, JJ., quashed the National Law Aptitude Exam (NLAT) conducted by National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru and directed the admission of students in NLSIU has to be necessarily through Common Law Admission Test (CLAT).

CLAT being an All India Examination for different National Law Universities has achieved its own importance and prominence in legal education. The steps taken by National Law Universities to form a Consortium and to cooperate with each other in conduct of CLAT is towards discharge of their public duty entrusted under the different statutes. The duty to uphold its integrity lies on the shoulder of each and every member.”

Read More… 

Pravasi Legal Cell v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 799 

“We cannot lose sight of the present situation prevailing in the country and across the globe” 

A 3-judge bench of Ashik Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, JJ observed that Strict enforcement of Civil Aviation Requirements at this moment may not yield any meaningful result for any stake holderand directed refund of air-fare during the lockdown period, when domestic and international flights’ operation was suspended.

Read More…

Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India, (2020) 8 SCC 808 

The bench of Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ has directed that all old age people who are eligible for pension should be regularly paid pension and those identified older people should be provided necessary medicines, masks, sanitizers and other essential goods by respective States.

Read More 

XYZ v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 10 SCC 337 

“Whether in a given case power under Section 482 is to be exercised or not, depends on the contents of the complaint, and the material placed on record.” 

A 3-judge bench of UU Lalit, Indu Malhotra and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ, hearing an appeal against the verdict of Gujarat High Court that quashed the criminal proceedings against a man accused for sexually assaulting and blackmailing his employee, held that exercise of inherent powers of High Court under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to quash FIR, when there are serious triable allegations in complaint is bad in law.

Justice Reddy opined that

where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the question is whether it was without the consent of the woman alleged to have been raped, and such woman states in her evidence before the Court that she did not consent, the court shall presume that she did not consent.

Read More…

Skill Lotto Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 990 

The 3-judge bench of Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah, JJ has upheld the constitutionality of imposition of GST on lotteries, betting and gambling. The Bench further held that while determining the taxable value of lottery the prize money is not to be excluded for the purpose of levy of GST.

Read More 

Krishna Lal Chawla v. State of U.P., (2021) 5 SCC 435 

The Division Bench of Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ., addressed the instant case dealing with vexatious complaint. The Bench, while expressing concern over such practises emphasised over the need of scrutinising such complaints at its initiation.

Read More 

Khushi Ram v. Nawal Singh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 128 

The bench of Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ., has held that when heirs of father of a female are included as person who can possibly succeed, it cannot be held that they are strangers and not the members of the family qua the female. The Court also held that consent decree recognising pre-existing rights created by oral family settlement does not require registration under Section 17 of Registration Act, 1908.

Read More  

Soorajmull Nagarmull v. Brijesh Mehrotra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1252

The Division Bench of R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ., held that once the fresh notification is issued by the State for land acquisition, no cause of action survive on previous notification and actions taken therein, when that proceeding is declared lapsed. Quoting the case of R.N. Dey v. Bhagyabati Pramanik, (2000) 4 SCC 400, the Bench stated,

“Discretion given to the court in dealing with the proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act is to be exercised for maintenance of court’s dignity and majesty of law and further an aggrieved party has no right to insist that court should exercise such jurisdiction, inasmuch as contempt is between contemner and the court.”

Read More

Parveen v. State of Haryana, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1184 

The bench of R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ., held that the confessional statements of the co-accused, in absence of other acceptable corroborative evidence, are not enough to convict an accused for conspiracy.

Read More 

State of Bihar v. Arbind Jee, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 821 

The bench of R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ., held that retrospective seniority cannot be claimed from a date when an employee is not even borne in service.

Read More 

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Private Ltd. v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 418 

The bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ issued directions with respect to motor vehicle accident claims and observed that the Central Government shall develop an online platform accessible to the tribunals, police authorities and insurers throughout India, as each State having an independent online platform for submission of accident reports, claims and responses to claims, will hamper efficient adjudication of claims, especially where the victim of the accident is not a resident of State where accident has occurred.

Read More 

Ishwari Lal Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2019) 10 SCC 437

A 3-judge bench comprising of R. F. Nariman, Surya Kant and R. Subhash Reddy JJ., placing reliance on the case of Sushil Murmu v. State of Jharkhand: (2004) 2 SCC 338, opined that this case fulfils the test of rarest of rare cases as it involved gruesome murder for human sacrifice of 2 yr old boy.

Justice Reddy observed that Having regard to age of the accused, they were not possessed of the basic humanness, they completely lacked the psyche or mindset which can be amenable for any reformation.”  

The Court also placed emphasised on extra-judicial confession and opined that

It is true that extrajudicial confession, is a weak piece of evidence but at the same time if the same is corroborated by other evidences on record, such confession can be taken into consideration to prove the guilt of the accused.” 

Thingujam Achouba Singh v. H. Nabachandra Singh, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 370

“The eligibility criteria will be within the domain of the employer and no candidate can seek as a matter of right, to provide relaxation clause.” 

A Division Bench headed by R. Subhash Reddy J., while quashing the order of the High Court of Manipur by which the advertisement dated 16.08.2016 was quashed, held that to provide relaxation clause in eligibility criteria is within the domain of the employer and High Court has not power to provide a relaxation which is not notified in the advertisement.

While it is open for the employer to notify such criteria for relaxation when sufficient candidates are not available, at the same time nobody can claim such relaxation as a matter of right.” 

Notable Dissents 

Ravi v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 622

“A civic society has a `fundamental’ and `human’ right to live free from any kind of psycho fear, threat, danger or insecurity at the hands of anti-social elements.”

A 3-judge bench comprising of R. F. Nariman, Surya Kant and R. Subhash Reddy JJ., following the judgment in the case of California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992 where it was observed that “qualitative difference of death from all other punishments requires a correspondingly greater degree of scrutiny of the capital sentencing determination” and upheld (2:1) the death penalty awarded to an accused for rape and murder of a two- year old girl. The Court observed that the Sentencing Policy needs to strike a balance between (a) deterrent effect and (b) complete reformation for integration of the offender.  

Justice R. Subhash Reddy dissenting on the question of sentence noted that, I am of the view that, this is not a fit case where the appellant is to be awarded capital punishment, i.e, death penalty. According to him the mitigating circumstances of the Appellant dominated the aggravating circumstances and that there is no proof to show that reform or rehabilitation of the convict is not possible. Moreover, the conviction is solely based on circumstantial evidence, if no special reasons exist, the extreme punishment of death penalty should not be imposed.

Relying on the judgement in the case of Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P., (1973) 1 SCC 20 and Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1979) 3 SCC 727, Justice Reddy observed that

In the aforesaid judgment, while considering the scope of Section 235(2) read with Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court has held that, in fixing the degree of punishment or in making the choice of sentence for various offences, including one under Section 302 IPC, the Court should not confine its consideration “principally or merely” to the circumstances connected with the particular crime, but also due consideration to the circumstances of the criminal. However, it is observed that, what is the relative weight to be given to the aggravating and mitigating factors, depends on facts and circumstances of each case.” 

† Sucheta Sarkar, Editorial Assistant, EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. 

[1] Session 9 – ADR Mechanism and Role of Judges, Regional Judicial Conference on Strengthening Justice Delivery System: Tools & Techniques, Organized by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Karnataka Judicial Academy and National Judicial Academy 27th February, 2015 to 1st March, 2015.

[2] Supreme Court, Chief Justice and Judges

[3] Sri Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Telangana High Court

[4] SC Observer, Justice R. Subhash Reddy

[5][ Sri Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Telangana High Court

[6] Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.Subhash Reddy, Gujarat High Court

[7]Supreme Court, Chief Justice and Judges

[8] Ministry of Law and Justice, Order of Appointment

[9] Supreme Court, Chief Justice and Judges

[10]The New Indian Express, Subhash Reddy to join Supreme Court

Hot Off The PressNews

Gujarat High Court: Biren A. Vaishnav, J., while dealing with the plea filed by street vendors who had been prohibited from selling non-vegetarian food on the streets of Ahmedabad rapped the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and asked them as to how people could be stopped from “eating what they want” just because “somebody in power thinks this is what they want you to do”.

“You don’t like non-veg food, it is your lookout. How can you decide what people should eat outside? How can you stop people from eating what they want?”

The Court was dealing with the plea filed by 20 street vendors challenging the non-implementation of Street Vendors [Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending] Act, 2014.

Petitioners have also challenged the deplorable, illegal, and unjust action of the Respondents [AMC, State of Gujarat] in seizing the laaris/carts and other ancillary equipment/apparatus of the Petitioners coupled with the raw materials used to prepare food/snacks for consumption without following due process.

AMC had claimed that the drive was undertaken in view of the fact that selling non-vegetarian food on the streets creates a health hazard as it was unhygienic and also harmful for the environment.

The plea also averred that as long as a person doesn’t impinge/violate the right of another or violates the law of the land, he/she must be free to produce/sell anything that he/she wants as such right has been afforded by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The plea prayed that AMC be directed o not oust any hawker/vendor/seller from the streets and not to impound any cart/laari/equipment/apparatus of the street vendors without complying with the provisions of the Street Vendors Act, 2014 and rules framed thereunder.

[Source: The Indian Express]

Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this story.

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul* and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ has temporarily restored the senior designation of Advocate Yatin Narendra Oza who was stripped off this designation after he levelled charges of corruption against the registry of the Gujarat High Court.

What is the case about?

On 21.03.2020, Oza wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of India making serious allegations against a senior-most Judge of the Gujarat High Court in his capacity as President of the Bar Association. He then transgressed all limits by circulating the letter in the Bar Association’s WhatsApp group after calling the High Court a “Gamblers Den” in a Press Conference.

Oza was then stripped off his Senior Advocate designation. The Court cited Rule 26 of the High Court of Gujarat (Designation of Senior Advocates) Rules 2018, which states “In the event a Senior Advocate is found guilty of conduct which according to the Full Court disentitles the Senior Advocate concerned to be worthy of the designation, the Full Court may review its decision to designate the person concerned and recall the same”. Read more

High Court’s line of arguments

The High Court labelled the apology rendered by Oza as a repeated behaviour of what would amount to “slap, say sorry, and forget”. The High Court objected to the Writ Petition filed before the Supreme Court on the ground that what has been withdrawn is a ‘privilege’ and not a ‘right’. It was further argued that the conferment of this privilege weighs not only on the existence of certain legal acumen but a much higher standard of behaviour and if such presupposition disappears, the authority is empowered to withdraw the privilege. Hence, re-conferment of this right on the petitioner through a writ of mandamus would be de hors the exercise of powers under statutory rules.

Oza’s line of arguments

Oza’s case on the other hand was that the Supreme Court should show compassion. The withdrawal of designation is not limited by time and is disproportionately harsh as the petitioner is not being given an opportunity to redeem himself. The filing of an application afresh for designation after the specified time bar is stated to not really be a redemption.

It was argued that he has bona fidely raised issues within the institution regarding non-circulation of matters, based on a large number of complaints received from the members of the Bar by him by reason of his holding the position of the President. He endeavoured to resolve the grievances within the system by writing several letters and making many representations which were in a sober and restrained language and that the grievance was stated to be not one against the Judges, but against the manner of working of the Registry. The Press Conference was stated to be the culmination of his inability to resolve the disputes, as a last resort where he got emotionally overwhelmed and made utterances of which he has been very apologetic from the very beginning.

Supreme Court’s ruling

While the Court found little ground to interfere with the High Court’s decision, it still thought it proper to give one more and last chance to Oza and hence, temporarily restored Oza’s Senior designation for a period of two years from 1.1.2022.

“It is the High Court which will watch and can best decide how the petitioner behaves and conducts himself as a senior counsel without any further opportunity. It will be for the High Court to take a final call whether his behaviour is acceptable in which case the High Court can decide to continue with his designation temporarily or restore it permanently.”

The Court made clear that if there is any infraction in the conduct of the petitioner within this period of two years, the High Court would be well within its rights to withdraw the indulgence.

“In effect, the fate of the petitioner is dependent on his appropriate conduct as a senior counsel before his own High Court, which will have the final say. All we are seeking to do is to  give him a chance by providing a window of two years to show that he truly means what he has assured us. We can only hope that the petitioner abides by his assurances and does not give any cause for the High Court or for us to think otherwise.”

[Yatin Narendra Oza v. High Court of Gujarat, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1004, decided on 28.10.2021]


For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi

*Judgment by: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Know Thy Judge| Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Appointments & TransfersNews

President of India appoints the following Advocates as Judges of the Gujarat High Courts w.e.f. the date they assume charge of their respective offices:-

Sl. No. Name (S/Shri)
1. Smt. Mauna Manish Bhatt
2. Samir Jyotindraprasad Dave
3. Hemant MaheshchandraPrachchhak
4. Sandeep Natvarlal Bhatt
5. Aniruddha Pradyumna Mayee
6. NiralRashmikant Mehta
7. Ms. Nisha Mahendrabhai Thakore

Ministry of Law and Justice

[Dt. 16-10-2021]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Elevation of 7 Advocates as Judges in Gujarat High Court

Supreme Court Collegium has approved the proposal for elevation of the following Advocates as Judges in the Gujarat High Court:

1. Mrs. Mauna Manish Bhatt,

2. Shri Samir J. Dave,

3. Shri Hemant M. Prachchhak,

4. Shri Sandeep N. Bhatt,

5. Shri Aniruddha Pradyumna Mayee,

6. Shri Niral Rashmikant Mehta, and

7. Ms. Nisha Mahendrabhai Thakore.

Supreme Court of India

[Collegium Statement dt. 21-9-2021]