Patna High Court
Appointments & TransfersNews

President appoints S/Shri (i) Shailendra Singh, (ii) Arun Kumar Jha, (iii) Jitendra Kumar, (iv) Alok Kumar Pandey, (v) Sunil Dutta Mishra, (vi) Chandra Prakash Singh, and (vii) Chandra Shekhar Jha, to be Judges of the Patna High Court, in that order of seniority, with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective offices.


Ministry of Law and Justice

[Notification dt. 1-6-2022]

Patna High Court
Appointments & TransfersNews

The Supreme Court Collegium has approved the proposal for the elevation of the following Judicial Officers as Judges in the Patna High Court:

1. Shri Shailendra Singh,

2. Shri Arun Kumar Jha,

3. Shri Jitendra Kumar,

4. Shri Alok Kumar Pandey,

5. Shri Sunil Dutta Mishra,

6. Shri Chandra Prakash Singh, and

7. Shri Chandra Shekhar Jha.


Supreme Court of India

[Statement dt. 4-5-2022]

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: Sanjay Dhar, J., expressed that, there may be stray incidents where the advocates have resorted to levelling allegations against the Judicial Officers in order to seek transfer of their cases from one Court to another to suit their convenience, but then this cannot be generalized.

The petitioners have challenged an order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar whereby transfer application filed by the petitioners for transfer of a case under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act from the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class to any other Court of competent jurisdiction was declined.

Analysis, Law and Decision

High Court noted that the main grouse of the petitioners was that their application for modification or vacation of order passed by the trial Magistrate in ex-parte against the petitioners was not being considered on its merits expeditiously.

Further, it was also noted that there had been some exchange of harsh words between the petitioners’ counsel and the Magistrate, which had forced the petitioner to approach the Chief Judicial Magistrate seeking transfer of proceedings from the Court of trial Magistrate.

The Bench expressed that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had vide the impugned order rightly declined to transfer the proceedings from the Court of trial Magistrate, but, while doing so, the Chief Judicial Magistrate had made certain sweeping remarks against the advocates by stating that the advocates level unnecessary allegations against the Judicial Officers in order to facilitate their personal convenience.

“Merely because the Magistrate has failed to dispose of the application of the petitioners, is not a ground to transfer the case. It is also not a ground for transfer of a case if there is exchange of some hot words between the court and the Counsel.”

Hence, in view of the above, the decision of Chief Judicial Magistrate Srinagar to decline the transfer of the matter from the trial Magistrate, is legally correct and cannot be interfered with.

Therefore, the sweeping remarks made by the Chief Judicial Magistrate were uncalled for an unnecessary for the decision of the case.

High Court also remarked that,

Bench and Bar are two wheels of the chariot of justice. Both are equal and no one is superior to the other.

The members of the Bar, as such, deserve the utmost respect and dignity. There may be some rotten apples in profession, but to say that the advocates generally adopt these tactics is not the correct position.

Hence, the remarks of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, as such, deserve to be expunged. [Latief Ahmad v. Shafeeqa Bhat, 2022 SCC OnLine J&K 249, decided on 8-4-2022]


Advocates before the Court:

For the Petitioner: Hazim Quershi, Advocate

For the Respondents: None

Appointments & TransfersNews

Supreme Court Collegium has, on reconsideration, resolved to reiterate its earlier recommendation for the elevation of the following two Judicial Officers as Judges in the Bombay High Court:

1. Smt. U.S. Joshi-Phalke, and

2. Shri B.P. Deshpande


Supreme Court of India

[Collegium Statement dt. 1-2-2022]

Appointments & TransfersNews

The Supreme Court Collegium has, on reconsideration, resolved to reiterate its earlier recommendation for the elevation of the following two Judicial Officers as Judges in the Calcutta High Court:

1. Smt. Shampa Dutt (Paul), and

2. Shri Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury


Supreme Court of India

[Collegium Statement dt. 1-2-2022]

Telangana High Court
Appointments & TransfersNews

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

ADVOCATES:


1. Shri Kasoju Surendhar @ K. Surender,

2. Shri Chada Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy,

3. Smt. Surepalli Nanda,

4. Shri Mummineni Sudheer Kumar,

5. Smt. Juvvadi Sridevi @ Kuchadi Sridevi,

6. Shri Mirza Safiulla Baig, and

7. Shri Natcharaju Shravan Kumar Venkat.


JUDICIAL OFFICERS:


1. Smt. G. Anupama Chakravarthy,

2. Smt. M.G. Priyadarshini,

3. Shri Sambasivarao Naidu,

4. Shri A. Santosh Reddy, and

5. Dr. D. Nagarjun.


Supreme Court of India

[Collegium Statement dt. 1-2-2022]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Supreme Court Collegium has approved the proposal for the elevation of the following Judicial Officers as Judges in the Delhi High Court:

1. Ms. Poonam A. Bamba,

2. Ms. Neena Bansal Krishna,

3. Shri Dinesh Kumar Sharma,

4. Shri Anoop Kumar Mendiratta,

5. Ms. Swarana Kanta Sharma, and

6. Shri Sudhir Kumar Jain


Supreme Court of India

[Collegium Statement dt. 1-2-2022]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Supreme Court Collegium has approved the proposal for elevation of the following persons as Judges in the Madhya Pradesh High Court:

ADVOCATES:

1. Shri Maninder Singh Bhatti,

2. Shri Dwarka Dhish Bansal @ DD Bansal, and

3. Shri Milind Ramesh Phadke.

JUDICIAL OFFICERS:

1. Shri Amar Nath Kesharwani,

2. Shri Prakash Chandra Gupta, and

3. Shri Dinesh Kumar Paliwal.


Supreme Court of India

[Statement dt. 29-1-2022]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Supreme Court Collegium has, on reconsideration, resolved to reiterate its earlier recommendation for the elevation of the following three Judicial Officers as Judges in Calcutta High Court:

1. Ms Ananya Bandyopadhyay,

2. Mrs Rai Chattopadhyay, and

3. Shri Subhendu Samanta.


Supreme Court of India

[Collegium Statement]

Appointments & TransfersNews

President appoints the following Advocates and Judicial Officers as Judges of the Rajasthan High Court and directs them to assume charge of their respective offices: –

Sl. No. Name (S/Shri) Name of the High Court in which appointed
1. Farjand Ali, Advocate Rajasthan
2. Sudesh Bansal, Advocate Rajasthan
3. Anoop Kumar Dhand, Advocate Rajasthan
4. Vinod Kumar Bharwani, Judicial Officer Rajasthan
5. Madan Gopal Vyas, Judicial Officers Rajasthan

Ministry of Law and Justice

[Notification dt. 11-10-2021]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Elevation of 4 Judicial Officers as Judges in Bombay High Court


Supreme Court Collegium has approved the proposal for elevation of the following Judicial Officers as Judges in the Bombay High Court:

1. Shri A.L. Pansare,

2. Shri S.C. More,

3. Smt. U.S. Joshi-Phalke, and

4. Shri B.P. Deshpande.


Supreme Court of India

[Collegium Statement dt. 29-9-2021]

Patna High Court
Appointments & TransfersNews

Elevation of 2 Judicial Officers as Judges in Patna High Court


The Supreme Court Collegium has approved the proposal for elevation of the following Judicial Officers as Judges in the Patna High Court:

1. Shri Nawneet Kumar Pandey, and

2. Shri Sunil Kumar Panwar.


Collegium Statement dt. 23-9-2021

Supreme Court of India

Appointments & TransfersNews

Reiteration of earlier recommendation for elevation of 3 Judicial Officers as Judges


Supreme Court Collegium has, on reconsideration, resolved to reiterate its earlier recommendation for the elevation of the following Judicial Officers as Judges in the Allahabad High Court:

1. Shri Om Prakash Tripathi,

2. Shri Umesh Chandra Sharma, and

3. Shri Syed Waiz Mian.


Collegium Resolution

[Statement dt. 1-09-2021]

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Appointments & TransfersNews

Elevation of 2 Judicial Officers as Judges in Jammu and Kashmir High Court


Supreme Court Collegium has approved the proposal for elevation of the following Judicial Officers as Judges in the Jammu & Kashmir High Court:

1. Shri Mohan Lal, and

2. Shri Mohd. Akram Chowdhary


Collegium Resolution

[Statement dt. 1-09-2021]

Gauhati High Court
Appointments & TransfersNews

Elevation of 3 Advocates and 2 Judicial Officers as Judges of Gauhati HC


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

ADVOCATES:

1. Shri Kakheto Sema,

2. Shri Devashis Baruah, and

3. Shri Arun Dev Choudhury.

JUDICIAL OFFICERS:

4. Smt. Malasri Nandi, and

5. Smt. Marli Vanku


Collegium Resolution

[Statement dt. 1-09-2021]

Kerala High Court
Appointments & TransfersNews

SC Collegium approves proposal for elevation of 4 Advocates & 4 Judicial Officers as Judges in Kerala HC


Supreme Court Collegium has approved the proposal for elevation of the following Advocates and Judicial Officers as Judges in the Kerala High Court:

Advocates

1. Smt. Shoba Annamma Eapen,

2. Smt. Sanjeetha Kalloor Arakkal,

3. Shri Basant Balaji, and

4. Shri Aravinda Kumar Babu Thavarakkattil.

Judicial Officers

1. Shri C. Jayachandran,

2. Smt. Sophy Thomas,

3. Shri P.G. Ajithkumar, and

4. Smt. C.S. Sudha.


Collegium Resolution

[Statement dt. 1-09-2021]

Jharkhand High Court
Appointments & TransfersNews

Elevation of 5 Judicial Officers as Judges in Jharkhand High Court


Supreme Court Collegium has approved the proposal for elevation of the following Judicial Officers as Judges in the Jharkhand High Court:

1. Shri Pradeep Kumar Srivastava

2. Shri Gautam Kumar Choudhary,

3. Shri Ambuj Nath,

4. Shri Navneet Kumar, and

5. Shri Sanjay Prasad.


Collegium Resolution

[Statement dt. 1-09-2021]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Calcutta High Court | Elevation of 2 Advocates and 4 Judicial Officers as Judges


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

Advocates

  1. Shri Krishna Rao, and
  2. Ms Koyeli Bhattacharyya

Judicial Officers

  1. Smt Shampa Dutt (Paul),
  2. Shri Bibhas Ranjan De,
  3. Shri Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, and
  4. Shri Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee.

Collegium Resolution

[Statement dt. 1-09-2021]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Rajasthan High Court | Elevation of Advocates and Judicial Officers as Judges


Supreme Court Collegium approved the proposal for elevation of the following Advocates and Judicial Officers as Judges in the Rajasthan High Court:

Advocates

  1. Ganesh Ram Meena,
  2. Sudesh Bansal, and
  3. Anoop Dhand.

Judicial Officers

  1. Shri Uma Shankar Vyas,
  2. Shri Vinod Kumar Bharwani, and
  3. Shri Madan Gopal Vyas.

Collegium Resolution

Statement dt. 1-09-2021

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Dipankar Datta, CJ and M.S. Sonak, J., observed that,

“Court has the duty of protecting the interest of the community in the due administration of justice and, so, it is entrusted with the power to punish for its contempt.”

Petitioner pointed out that respondent 1 by making false and scurrilous allegations against some judicial officers of the District Judiciary and uploading the said content on YouTube and WhatsApp committed criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Further, he added that he obtained consent under Section 15 of the said Act from the Advocate General.

In view of the above background, the petitioner urged action against respondent 1.

Analysis, Law and Decision

Petitioner pointed that respondent 1 who was possibly based in the UK was in the habit of uploading videos on YouTube and WhatsApp Groups alleging that some of the members of the District Judiciary in Goa are corrupt.

Prima Facie, the content allegedly uploaded by respondent 1 was quite contumacious and might, if established, constitute criminal contempt.

Whether we ought to proceed any further in this matter or it is better to proceed with confidence in our institutions and our judicial officers who function to the best of their abilities without fear or favour?

Bench stated that the shoulders of this institution are broad enough to shrug off the scurrilous allegations.

“Dignity and authority of our judicial institutions are neither dependent on the opinions allegedly expressed by respondent 1 nor can the dignity our institution and its officers be tarnished by such stray slights or irresponsible content.”

High Court observed that inquiries made on the administrative side revealed the irresponsibility of the comments and the possible use of the uploader as a front by some disgruntled litigants.

Therefore, Court opined that to take this matter further might only serve to feed the publicity craze of those who uploaded the content to provoke rather than out of some concern to bring to fore some genuine grievance concerning the administration of justice in Goa.

Lord Denning summed up the above-stated approach in R V. Metropolitan Police Commr., (1968) 2 QB 150, Judge refused to be provoked by the scathing article by a Lawyer:

“Let me say at once that we will never use this jurisdiction as a means to uphold our own dignity. That must rest on surer foundations. All we would ask is that those who criticise us will remember that, from the nature of our office, we cannot reply to their criticisms. We cannot enter into public controversy. Still less into political controversy. We must rely on our conduct itself to be its own vindication.”

In the decision of Haridas v. Usha Rani Banik, (2007) 14 SCC 1, Court held that the majesty of law continues to hold its head high notwithstanding any scrullious attacks made by persons who feel that the law Courts will absorb anything and everything, including attacks on their honesty, integrity and impartiality. The Courts generally ignore irresponsible statements which are anything but legitimate criticism. This magnanimity is not its weakness but its strength.”

Another reference was made stating that the Chief Justice of the UK, deposing before the Phillimore Committee gave evidence to the following effect:

“Judges” backs have got to be a good deal broader than they were thought to be years ago.”

Lord Atkin also once said, “Courts are satisfied to leave to public opinion, attacks or comments derogatory or scandalous to them.”

Elaborating the above, Court stated that it is the people that have a vital stake in the free and effective administration of the Justice.

Concluding the matter, relying on the decision of Supreme Court in Delhi Judicial Service Assn. v. State of Gujarat, (1991) 4 SCC 406, it was held that the power to punish for contempt is to be only sparingly exercised, not to protect the dignity of the Court against insult or injury, but, to protect and vindicate the right of the people so that the administration of justice is not perverted, prejudiced, obstructed, or interfered with. [Kashinath Jairam Shetye v. David Clever, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 2235, decided on 18-08-2021]