Know thy Judge

As Justice Indira Banerjee, 8th female Judge of the Supreme Court of India, celebrates her 63rd Birthday, we endeavor to recapitulate her journey so far via the following significant decisions-

  • Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1 : In this significant ruling, a 5-judge bench of Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah, and Ravindra Bhat, JJ., unanimously ruled that the protection granted to a person under Section 438 Cr.PC should not invariably be limited to a fixed period; it should inure in favour of the accused without any restriction on time. Read more
  • Rajendra Diwan v. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1586: The 5-judge bench of Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ., declared Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 that Act purports to confer a right of statutory Second Appeal to the Supreme Court, ultra vires the Constitution of India. The Court said that a provision which mandates the Supreme Court to consider an appeal is clearly beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature. Read more
  • West U.P. Sugar Mills Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 380:  The 5-judge bench of Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee and Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., held that once the Central Government having exercised the power under Entries 33 and 34 List III of seventh Schedule and fixed the “minimum price”, the State Government cannot fix the “minimum price” of sugarcane. Read more
  • Mukesh v. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi), 2020 SCC OnLine SC 700:  The 5-judge Constitution bench of Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ., held that the accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) is not entitled to an acquittal as a blanket rule merely because the complainant is the investigating officer. Read more
  • State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 677:  5-judge bench of Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ upon noticing that SC decision of E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P., (2005) 1 SCC 394, is required to be revisited, referred the matter to a larger bench. While doing so, the Court observed, “Reservation was not contemplated for all the time by the framers of the Constitution.  On the one hand, there is no exclusion of those who have come up, on the other hand, if sub- classification is denied, it would defeat right to equality by treating unequal as equal.”  Read more
  • P. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., (2019) 5 SCC 403:The 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, MM Shantanagoudar and Indira Banerjee, JJ., upheld the conviction and sentence of life imposed upon Saravana Bhavan owner P. Rajagopal by the Madras High Court for the abduction and murder of his employee Santhakumar. Read more
  • EXL Careers v. Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 621:  Answering a reference the 3-judge bench of RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee, JJ., held that if a plaint is returned under Order VII Rule 10 and 10A of CPC, for presentation in the court in which it should have been instituted, the plaint is to be considered as a fresh plaint and the trial is to be conducted de novo. Read more
  • Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamala, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 676:  The bench of Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee, JJ has held that when no substantial question of law is formulated, but a Second Appeal is decided by the High Court, the judgment of the High Court is vitiated in law. Formulation of substantial question of law is mandatory and the mere reference to the ground mentioned in Memorandum of Second Appeal cannot satisfy the mandate of Section 100 of the CPC. Read more
  • Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra 2020 SCC OnLine SC 631:The 2-judge bench of Indira Banerjee and Indu Malhotra, JJ., held that Section 88 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 cannot be read in isolation from the other provisions of the Act, particularly Sections 65, 66, 125 and 126 thereof. It further, said, however laudable be the purpose, the Executive cannot deprive a person of his property without specific legal authority, which can be established in a court of law.” Read More
  • S. Sarojini Amma v. Velayudhan Pillai Sreekumar, (2019) 11 SCC 391:  The Bench comprising of Arun Mishra and Indira Banerjee, JJ. allowed an appeal while setting aside the judgment and order of the Kerala High Court concerning a ‘gift deed’. placing the analysis of provisions of Transfer of Property Act along with the decisions pertaining to the same subject matter stated that: “A conditional gift with no recital of acceptance and no evidence in proof of acceptance, where possession remains with the donor as long as he is alive, does not become complete during lifetime of the donor. When a gift is incomplete and title remains with the donor the deed of gift might be cancelled.” Read more
  • Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State Of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608:  The Bench of D.Y. Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee, JJ., held that “Consent” with respect to S. 375 involves an active understanding of circumstances, actions and consequences of proposed act. Individual who makes a reasoned choice to act after evaluating various alternative actions (or inaction) as well as various possible consequences flowing from such action or inaction, consents to such action. Where a woman does not “consent” to sexual acts described in main body of S. 375, offence of rape has occurred. While S. 90 IPC does not define term “consent”, “consent” based on a “misconception of fact” is not consent in the eye of law. Thus, in case of woman engaging in sexual relations on false promise to marriage, her “consent” is based on “misconception of fact”, and such sexual act(s) will amount to rape.
  • Sarvepalli Ramaiah v. District Collector, Chittoor, (2019) 4 SCC 500:  The Bench comprising of R. Banumathi and Indira Banerjee, JJ., held that Ryotwari patta cannot be granted in respect of area declared as water body (tank poramboke) as same vests in Government free from all encumbrances under S. 2-A of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956. In her concurring opinion, Indira Banerjee, J., observed that, “A decision may sometimes be set aside and quashed under Article 226 on the ground of illegality. This is when there is an apparent error of law on the face of the decision, which goes to the root of the decision and/or in other words an apparent error, but for which the decision would have been otherwise”.

 

Legislation UpdatesNotifications

Ministry of Law and Justice

Central Authority nominates Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Judge Supreme Court of India as Chairman of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee with immediate effect.


Ministry of Law and Justice

[Notification dt. 03-09-2020]


About Justice Rohinton Nariman:

Date of Birth:13.08.1956

School: Cathedral School, Mumbai (High 1st Division, ISC)

College:

  • Shri Ram College of Commerce-B.Com
  • Faculty of Law, Delhi – L.L.B. (1st Class-2nd in the University)
  • Harvard Law School-L.L.M. (Thesis on affirmative action: a comparison between India and US constitutional law)

Profession:

Senior Counsel, Supreme Court of India.
Was made Senior Counsel by the Chief Justice of India.  Justice Venkatachalaiah amended the rules in order to make him a Senior Counsel at the young age of 37 against the mandatory 45.  Has practiced Maritime Law in New York at Haight, Gardener, Poor and Havens for 1 year.  Has practiced law for the last 35 years.  Has over 500 Reported Supreme Court Judgments to his credit.  Expert in Comparative Constitutional Law and Civil Law.

Governing Board: Gujarat Law School, Ahmedabad.

Mediation Committee: Member, Supreme Court of India.

Lectured at:

  • The Delhi Law School, University of Delhi.
  • The Bar Council of India at the Supreme Court of India.
  • Gave the keynote address at the K.L. Misra Lecture on SPIRITUALITY AND LAW along with the Chief Justice of India and other Supreme Court Judges in Allahabad in 2004.
  • Member of the Delegation from the Supreme Court of India to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, 2002.
  • Gave a talk at IIC Delhi 2007 on Beethoven.

Specializing in Comparative Religious Studies:

  • Ordained Priest from Bandra Agiary.
  • Lectured in New York to the Zoroastrian Federation.
  • Gave the SEARCH lecture at the IIC, Delhi in 200.
  • Gave religious talks at Philadelphia in 2005.
  • Gave two lectures in Ahmedabad at the invitation of the Ahmedabad Parsi Panchayat in 2003.
  • Held fortnightly Gatha classes for two years in Delhi.
  • Delivered the Annual K.R. Cama Lecture at K.R. Cama Institute, Mumbai on “Through the Looking Glass”.
  • Zoroastrianism in other faiths on 11.11.2006.
  • Solicitor General of India from July 27, 2011 to February 4, 2013.
  • Elevated as Judge, Supreme Court of India on 7th July, 2014.

Image Credits: DNA India

Know thy Judge

As Justice N. V. Ramana, next in line to become the Chief Justice of India, celebrates his 63rd birthday today, let’s have a look at his journey so far in shaping the justice system.

Here are some of the notable judgments that Justice Ramana has been a part of:

Jindal Stainless Ltd v. State of Haryana, (2017) 12 SCC 1: A 9-judge bench, by 7:2 majority, upheld the validity of the entry tax imposed by the States on goods imported from other States. The Bench held that taxes simpliciter are not within the contemplation of Part XIII of the Constitution of India and that the word ‘Free’ used in Article 301 does not mean “free from taxation”. T.S. Thakur, CJ and Dr.  A.K. Sikri, S.A. Bobde, Shiva Kirti Singh, N.V. Ramana, R. Banumathi and A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ, giving the majority view said that States are well within their right to design their fiscal legislations to ensure that the tax burden on goods imported from other States and goods produced within the State fall equally. Read more 

Central Public Information Officer v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1459: The 5-judge constitution Bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and NV Ramana, Dr. DY Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ has held that the office of the Chief Justice of India comes under the purview of the Right to Information. In the 250-pages long judgment, Justice Sanjiv Khanna wrote the majority opinion for the Bench and Justices NV Ramana and DY Chandrachud gave separate but concurring opinion. Read more 

Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637: A 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, R Subhash Reddy and BR Gavai, JJ has asked J&K administration to review all orders imposing curbs on telecom and internet services in the state in a week and put them in public domain. “The existing Suspension Rules neither provide for a periodic review nor a time limitation for an order issued under the Suspension Rules. Till this gap is filled, the Review Committee constituted under Rule 2(5) of the Suspension Rules must conduct a periodic review within seven working days of the previous review, in terms of the requirements under Rule 2(6).” Read more 

Foundations for Media Professionals v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 453 : A 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, R. Subhash Reddy and BR Gavai, JJ has constituted a three-member committee to look into demand for allowing 4G mobile internet in the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir. Noticing that since the issues involved affect the State and the nation, the Court found it appropriate to constitute a Special Committee comprising of the following Secretaries at national, as well as State, level to look into the prevailing circumstances and immediately determine the necessity of the continuation of the restrictions in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. Read more 

Nabam Rebia, and Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker, (2016) 8 SCC 1: A 5-judge constitutional bench of Jagdish Singh Khehar, Dipak Misra, Madan B. Lokur, Pinaki Chandra Ghose and N.V.Ramana, JJ. quashed the order of the Governor, preponing the 6th session of the Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly by a month without consulting the Chief Minister, Council of Ministers or the Speaker, on account of being violative of Article 163 read with Article 174 of the Constitution of India. Read more 

Commr. of Customs v. Dilip Kumar and Co., (2018) 9 SCC 1 : A five-Judge Constitution Bench speaking through N.V. Ramana, J., while invalidating the ratio of Sun Export Corpn. v. Collector of Customs(1997) 6 SCC 564, laid at rest the controversy regarding the interpretation of an ambiguous provision exempting tax. The Bench noticed that there was distinction between interpreting a charging section and an exempting section. In case of ambiguity in a charging section, the interpretation has to be made in favour of the assessee. Read more

Roger Mathew v. South India Bank Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1456 : A 5-judge Constitution Bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and NV Ramana, Dr. DY Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ has upheld the validity of Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017 and held that the said Section does not suffer from excessive delegation of legislative functions as there are adequate principles to guide framing of delegated legislation, which would include the binding dictums of this Court. The Court struck down the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2017, made under Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017, for being contrary to the parent enactment and the principles envisaged in the Constitution. Read more 

Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam v. State of T.N., (2016) 2 SCC 725 : The bench held that the appointment of Archakas in temples will have to be made in accordance with the Agamas, subject to their due identification as well as their conformity with constitutional mandates and principles. Exclusion of some and inclusion of a particular segment or denomination for appointment as Archakas would not violate Article 14 only so long such inclusion/exclusion is not based on criteria of caste, birth or any other constitutionally unacceptable parameter.

Md. Anwar v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 653:. The 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, SA Nazeer and Surya Kant, JJ has held that in order to successfully claim defence of mental unsoundness under Section 84 of IPC, the accused must show by preponderance of probabilities that he/she suffered from a serious-enough mental disease or infirmity which would affect the individual’s ability to distinguish right from wrong. “Mere production of photocopy of an OPD card and statement of mother on affidavit have little, if any, evidentiary value.” Read more 

Hot Off The PressNews

Dr Justice Arunachalam Chettiar Lakshmanan [22-03-1942 to 27-08-2020]

Justice Dr A.R. Lakshmanan, Former Supreme Court Judge passed away today morning, he was 78 years old.

Background

Former Supreme Court Judge A.R. Lakshmanan enrolled as a Lawyer on 10-01-1968 and served as Junior under eminent lawyers Shri. G.Ramanjuan, Shri. K.Venkataswami and R. Krishnamurthy before starting to practice on his own.

He had an independent practice in varied branches of Law including Civil, Criminal, Company Law, Taxation, Insolvency, Trade Marks and Patents Law, Matrimonial, Admiralty, Writ jurisdiction, etc.

After serving as a Lawyer for 23 years, Shri. A.R. Lakshmanan was appointed as Government Pleader for Tamil Nadu to represent their matters in the Madras High Court and Supreme Court. His knowledge and skills as well as the meticulous preparation and hard work he put in to argue various matters were noticed and appreciated by all.

In 1990, he was appointed by the President of India as a Permanent Judge in Madras High Court. After 8 ½ years of tenure in this position, he was transferred to Kerala High Court and was appointed as acting Chief Justice on 3 occasions. From there he went on to serve as Chief Justice at High Courts at Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh. He was finally elevated as a Judge of Supreme Court in the year 2002.

During as a Judge and Chief Justice of Kerala, Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh and as Judge of Supreme Court he had delivered more than 1,37000 Judgments. Many of them are landmark Judgements. His legal acumen reflected in each and every one of his judgment. Many of them have been recognised and appreciated as thought Provoking Judgments in the history of the Indian Judiciary. The landmark Judgment delivered by him as a member of a Division Bench which banned smoking in public places is the one considered by all as an important Judgement.

Supreme Court Judge | Chairman of the 18th Law Commission of India

He retired as a Judge of the Supreme Court in 2007 and was appointed as Chairman of the 18th Law Commission of India. In a short span before retirement from this post in 2009, he had submitted 32 reports to the Government of India recommending various measures to improve the Judicial System in India.

It is natural that the service of a person of the calibre of Shri. A.R. Lakshmanan is much sought after by various Judicial, quasi-Judicial and non-Judicial institutions. He was the secretary of Madras Bar Association for 4 times, the founder-chancellor of the National Law University at Jodhpur, Revising author of Wharton’s Law Lexicon (15th Edition), Editorial member in Indian Law Institute, Delhi, Chairman of COFEPOSA Advisory Board and Chairman of NSA Advisory Board. He served as Legal Advisor for Bank of Madura, City Union Bank, Canara Bank, IOB, New India Assurance Company and was the standing counsel for the University of Madras, Food Corporation of India, MGR Medical University.


[Source: Dr. Justice A.R. Lakshmanan.com]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Supreme Court Collegium approves the proposal for the elevation of Rajesh Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate, as Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court.


Supreme Court of India

[Collegium Statement dt. 17-08-2020]

Know thy Judge

The day marks as the death anniversary of former Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Y.V. Chandrachud who was born in Poona on 12-07-1920. He graduated with History and Economics in 1940 from the Elphinstone College, Bombay and had obtained his law degree in 1942 from ILS Law College, Pune. He enrolled as an advocate in High Court of Bombay in 1943. He was a part time professor of law in Government Law College, Bombay, from 1949 to 1952. He was appointed Judge, High Court Bombay, on 19-03-1961 and Judge, Supreme Court, on 28-08-1972. He was appointed the Chief Justice of India on 22-02-1978 and he was the longest serving CJI in India’s history at 7 years and 4 months and retired on 11-07-1985.

His son, Hon’ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud who is currently acting as Judge, Supreme Court recalls that he was alert till his last breath and even after retirement in 1985, he was actively involved in mediation and arbitration. He has several times mentioned as to how his father had a special place for criminal law in his heart and how the former CJI’s verdicts served a reformative role rather than only serve the “penological purpose.”

A true jurist, he was known to be a liberal judge and for his path breaking judgments.

His landmark judgments include:

  • Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India [(1980) 3 SCC 625] where he had laid down how a balance between fundamental rights and directive principles had to be achieved.
  • Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565] clearly showed his empathy for criminal law where he had laid down the law of anticipatory bail. He had held that anticipatory bail must be left to judges who have the experience to take a wise decision.
  • Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum [(1985) 2 SCC 556] where he had ruled that  divorced Muslim women were entitled to claim maintenance from husbands under the Civil Procedure Code, which overrides the Muslim Personal Law.
  • Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn.  [(1985) 3 SCC 545] where he had extended Article 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution to slum dwellers, ruling that they had the right to a roof over their heads.
  • While looking at the famous judgments no one can turn a blind eye towards the case of A.D.M. Jalbalpur v. Shivakant Shukla [(1976) 2 SCC 521] famously known as the ‘Habeas Corpus case’ which had famous for the wrong reasons, where he along with Justice P.N. Bhagwati, had decided that the right to life itself could be suspended during an emergency. He went on to bec­ome chief justice and later apologized for the decision. Justice Bhagwati also publicly repented for the same.

Fun Fact: In the recent privacy judgment, K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, [(2017) 10 SCC 1] his son, Hon’ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud found occasion to correct a historical wrong and held that the ADM Jabalpur decision was seriously flawed and ruled against it.


Suchita Shukla, Legal Editor has put this story together

Appointments & TransfersNews

President appoints Javed Iqbal Wani, to be a Judge of Common High Court for the Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Union territory of Ladakh with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office.

Notification


Ministry of Law and Justice

[Notification dt. 09-06-2020]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Supreme Court Collegium has approved the proposal for the elevation of Satya Gopal Chattopadhyay, Judicial Officer, as Judge of the Tripura High Court.


Supreme Court of India

[Collegium Statement dt. 19-02-2020]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Supreme Court Collegium has approved the proposal for the elevation of Ahanthem Bimol Singh, Advocate, as Judge of the Manipur High Court.


Supreme Court of India

[Collegium Statement dt. 19-02-2020]

Appointments & TransfersNews

President appoints Shri Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi, to be a Judge of the Orissa High Court with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office.


Ministry of Law and Justice

[Notification dt. 07-02-2020]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Collegium Resolution

The Supreme Court Collegium approved the proposal for elevation of the following persons as Judges of the Kerala High Court:

ADVOCATES:

  1. Shri T.R. Ravi,
  2. Shri Bechu Kurian Thomas,
  3. Shri Gopinath P., and

JUDICIAL OFFICER:

4. Smt. M.R. Anitha.


Supreme Court of India

[Collegium Resolution dt. 30-01-2020]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Appointment of Judge of Common HC for UT of J&K and UT of Ladakh

President appoints Shri Rajnesh Oswal, to be a Judge of Common High Court for the Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Union territory of Ladakh with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office.


Ministry of Law and Justice

[Notification dt. 29-01-2020]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Supreme Court Collegium after taking into consideration the material on record, has approved the proposal for elevation of the following Judicial Officers as Judges of the Rajasthan High Court:

  1. Shri Devendra Kachhawaha,
  2. Shri Satish Kumar Sharma,
  3. Ms. Prabha Sharma,
  4. Shri Manoj Kumar Vyas,
  5. Shri Rameshwar Vyas, and
  6. Shri Chandra Kumar Songara


[Supreme Court of India]

[Resolution dt. 22-01-2020]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Supreme Court Collegium after taking into consideration the material on record, has approved the proposal for elevation of Shri Javed Iqbal Wani, Advocate as Judge of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court.


[Collegium Resolution dt. 22-01-2020]

Supreme Court of India

Appointments & TransfersNews

Orders of Appointment

President is pleased to appoint Shri Bibhu Prasad Routray, to be a Judge of the Orissa High Court with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office.


Ministry of Law and Justice

[Notification dt. 07-11-2019]

Appointments & TransfersNews

President appoints Shri Anoop Chitkara, to be a Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court with effect from the date he
assumes charge of his office.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, to be Additional Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, for a period of two years, with effect from the date she assumes charge of her office.


[Notification dt. 29-05-2019]

Ministry of Law and Justice

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gujarat High Court: The Bench of N.V. Anjaria, J. dismissed a petition challenging the eligibility criteria in Advertisement No. RC-0719/2019 published by the respondents, for the position of Civil Judge, holding that a Deputy Manager working in the legal branch of a bank could not be treated as an employee working in the ‘department allied to Court’.

Rule 7(2)(b) of the Gujarat State Judicial Services Rules, 2005 states that the eligibility required for selection to the position of a Civil Judge. is that a candidate “must be practicing as an Advocate in Courts of Civil and/or Criminal Jurisdiction on the last date fixed for receipt of application; or must be working in the Courts or other allied Departments on the last date fixed for receipt of application.” 

Petitioner herein who was working as a Deputy Manager (Law) in the real estate department of a bank, was determined as ineligible for the post of Civil Judge and his application was rejected on the ground that it did not fall within the aforestated eligibility criterion. The petition questioned the ambit of “other allied Departments” in Rule 7(2)(b) and whether it included a candidate working as a Deputy Manager (Law) in a Government Bank.

Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner, Jenil M. Shah submitted that the petitioner had cleared the All India Bar Examination and had the license to practice as an Advocate in the courts of India. Thereafter, he was appointed as the Deputy Manager (Legal) of State Bank of India. His work description indicated that he had been dealing with all kinds of legal work, including consultation and drafting. Hence, there was no reason to exclude the bank from “other allied Departments” and exclusion of bank from the ‘list of allied departments’ as stated under Instruction 10 of the Advertisement, was unjust and arbitrary.

Learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent, Shalin Mehta, submitted that the word ‘other allied departments’ in Rule 7(2)(b) has been used in conjunction with the word ‘courts’. The categories enumerated under the head of ‘other allied departments’ in Instruction 10 were those by which only the employees associated with courts or those familiar with court work are able to apply for the post of Civil Judges.

The Court noted that the impugned instruction categorized four departments as ‘allied to Court’: (i) High Courts or any courts subordinate; (ii) Office of the Government Pleader, Gujarat High Court; (iii) Office of the Government Pleader, City Civil Court Ahmedabad; and (iv) Legal Section or Legal Department, Government of Gujarat.

It was opined that selection of eligibility conditions is within the domain of the employer or the appointing authority; and judicial review thereof may extend only to see that the norms prescribed and the eligibility contemplated are relevant and have a rational nexus with the post concerned. Reliance in this regard was placed on Chandigarh Admn. v. Usha Kheterapal Waie, (2011) 9 SCC 645.

Further, the Court relied on K.C. Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka, 1985 Supp SCC 714 and applied the interpretation rule of noscitur a sociis which states that where general words follow a specific word, the general words must be confined to things of the same kind as those specified. It was opined that the categorization of ‘allied departments’ in the advertisement was aimed at inviting candidates having proficiency and experience in relation to Court. Thus, there was a balance and blend between the context and purpose of the impugned condition.

In view of the above, it was held that the petitioner was not eligible for participating in the recruitment process for appointment to the post of Civil Judge. [Avinash Detha v. Registrar (Recruitment), 2019 SCC OnLine Guj 804, Order dated 25-04-2019]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Proposal for the appointment of Shri Alok Kumar Verma, Judicial Officer, as Judge of the Uttaranchal High Court.

“The Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ. resolves to recommend that Shri Alok Kumar Verma, Judicial Officer, be appointed as Judge of the Uttaranchal High Court.”


[Notification dt. 06-05-2019]

Supreme Court of India

Appointments & TransfersNews

Proposal for the appointment of Shri Viju Abraham, Advocate as a Judge of the Kerala High Court.

“For purpose of assessing merit and suitability of Shri Viju Abraham we have carefully scrutinized the material already on record as well as the further information received from Kerala High Court. Having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the considered view that Shri Viju Abraham is suitable for elevation to the High Court.”

Collegium resolves to recommend that Shri Viju Abraham, Advocate, be appointed as a Judge of the Kerala High Court.


[Notification dt. 06-05-2019]

Supreme Court of India

Legislation UpdatesNotifications

S.O. 1661(E)—Whereas, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the National Investigation Act, 2008 (34 of 2008) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government had, vide notification number S.O. 2159(E) dated the 1st September, 2010, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), notified the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Shimla, as the Special Court for the purposes of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the said Act having jurisdiction throughout the State of Himachal Pradesh for the trial of Scheduled Offences;

And whereas, Shri Virender Singh, District and Sessions Judge, Shimla, who was appointed as the Judge to preside over the said Special Court vide notification number S.O. 1575(E) dated the 16th May, 2017, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), has been transferred;

Now, therefore, in the exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the National Investigation Act, 2008 (34 of 2008) and in supersession of the notification number S.O. 1575(E) dated the 16th May, 2017, except in respect of things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government, on the recommendation of the Hon’ble Chief Justice, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, hereby appoints Shri Rajeev Bhardwaj, District and Sessions Judge, Shimla, as the Judge to preside over the said Special Court.


[Notification dt. 29-04-2019]

Ministry of Home Affairs