Know thy Judge

Early Life and Career[1]


Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose was born on 11th April, 1959 in Kolkata (then Calcutta). In 1976, he passed his Higher Secondary Examination from St. Lawrence High School, Kolkata. He did his B.Com from St. Xavier’s College, Kolkata and Law from Surendranath College of Law in Kolkata as well.

Having obtained his degree in Law, Justice Bose enrolled with the Bar Council of West Bengal as an advocate in October, 1985. He practiced in the Original and the Appellate Side of the Calcutta High Court in Constitutional and Civil matters, with special emphasis on Intellectual Property Law cases.


In the High Courts[2]


After a tenure of roughly 19 years as an advocate in the Calcutta HC, Justice Aniruddha Bose was elevated to the HC Bench as a permanent Judge in 2004. He continued to serve the Calcutta HC till early 2018. He was also in the running for the post of Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, however, on 4th August 2018, upon recommendation by the SC Collegium, Justice Bose was appointed as the Chief Justice of Jharkhand High Court by the President of India, Shri Ramnath Kovind.


Journey to becoming Supreme Court Judge


In a Resolution, the Supreme Court Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, C.J., and S.A. Bobde, N.V. Ramana, Arun Mishra and R.F. Nariman, JJ., reiterated their recommendation (dt. 12-04-2019) to elevate Justice Aniruddha Bose as a Judge of the Supreme Court. Consequently, Justice Bose was appointed as a SC Judge on 24-05-2019 by President Shri Ramnath Kovind.


Notable Judgments that Justice Aniruddha Bose has been a part of


Calcutta High Court [2004 – 2018]

Madan Das v. Lt. Governor, 2011 SCC OnLine Cal 2374

The 7 Judge Bench of the High Court comprising of Jainarayan Patel, C.J. and Bhaskar Bhattacharya, Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, Indira Banerjee, Aniruddha Bose and Sambuddha Chakrabarti, JJ., held that unless special circumstances mentioned in Rule 5 of Order 47, CPC subsist, a Judge who delivered the original judgment or order sought to be reviewed, alone can take up the Application for review as well.

Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Mahaluxmi Textile Mills, 2009 SCC OnLine Cal 531

The Bench of S.S. Nijjar, C.J. and Indira Banerjee and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., in this trademark infringement suit, made significant observations as to the necessity and importance of trademark. It was noted that the key function of a trade mark is to indicate the source or origin of goods and services. The tort of passing off is committed if the offending trader applies an established trade mark in such manner so as to cause confusion or deception in the mind of the consumers as regards the source or origin of the goods and the mind of purchasers are directed to the firm whose identity is already linked with the trade mark in the market place.

Union of India v. Pam Development Pvt. Ltd,  2005 SCC OnLine Cal 299

The Division bench of Aloke Chakrabarti and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., held, the Chief Justice, under S. 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is not strictly bound to appoint an arbitrator who must have a qualification as agreed upon between the parties, thus, even if the arbitrator does not have the qualification, his appointment would not be rendered invalid.

Jharkhand High Court [2018- 2019]

Hit Narayan Jha v. The State of Jharkhand, 2018 SCC OnLine Jhar 1371

The bench of Aniruddha Bose, C.J. and Chandrashekhar, J., set aside the dismissal from service on the charge of taking illegal gratification. It was observed that the writ Court would not interfere with the orders passed by the departmental authority unless it has been passed in breach of the Discipline and Service Rules or in avoidance of the rules of natural justice.

State of Jharkhand v. HSS Integrated SDN, 2019 SCC OnLine Jhar 172

This was a contractual dispute between the State and the opposite parties in relation to a consultancy agreement over construction of six-lane Divided Carriage-way of certain parts of Ranchi Ring Road. An Arbitral Tribunal was constituted which found that termination of the contract was illegal and invalid. The bench of Aniruddha Bose, C.J. and Ratnaker Bhengra, J., while hearing the challenge to the Tribunal’s Award, held that there was no involvement of any grave violation of public policy by the Arbitral Tribunal in passing the award. The facts narrated in the award do not project any gross misuse of jurisdiction which could shock the conscience of the Court.

Supreme Court

Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police, (2020) 10 SCC 439

The 3-judge bench of SK Kaul, Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari, JJ., in the Shaheen Bagh protests matter, held that while there exists the right to peaceful protest against a legislation, public ways and public spaces cannot be occupied in such a manner and that too indefinitely. The Court noticed that the Constitutional scheme comes with the right to protest and express dissent, but with an obligation towards certain duties. These rights, in cohesion, enable every citizen to assemble peacefully and protest against the actions or inactions of the State. The same must be respected and encouraged by the State, for the strength of a democracy such as India’s lies in the same.

Read More…

State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, (2020) 8 SCC 1

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…

West U.P. Sugar Mills Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2020) 9 SCC 548

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…

Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 383

The 5-judge bench of Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., held the Government Office Ms. No.3 dated 10.1.2000 issued by the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh providing 100% reservation to the Scheduled Tribe candidates (out of whom 33.1/3% shall be women) for the post of teachers in the schools in the scheduled areas in Andhra Pradesh, unconstitutional, as there was no rhyme or reason with the State Government to resort to 100% reservation.

Read more…

TN Medical Officers Association v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 699

The 5-judge Constitution bench of Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., held that the Medical Council of India has no power to make any reservation for in-service candidates in Post Graduate Medical Course in States and that only States are allowed to grant the benefit of reservation of seats to in-service doctors in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) postgraduate degree courses.

Read more…

Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule v. Vishwasrao Patil Murgud Sahakari Bank Ltd., (2020) 9 SCC 215

The 5-judge bench of Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ held that “’banking’ relating to co­operatives can be included within the purview of Entry 45 of List I, and it cannot be said to be over inclusion to cover provisions of recovery by co­operative banks in the SARFAESI Act.”

Read more

Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramanian, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 75

The 3-Judge Bench comprising of N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., held that upheld the judgement of High Court of Judicature at Madras, whereby the order of acquittal of the Judicial Magistrate was reversed and the appellants had been convicted under Section 138 of the NIA, 1881. The Bench observed-

“Once the appellant 2 had admitted his signatures on the cheque and the Deed, the trial Court ought to have presumed that the cheque was issued as consideration for a legally enforceable debt.”

Read more…

Rohtas v. State of Haryana, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1014

Explaining the difference between Sections 34 and 149 of the IPC, the 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., held that

“Although both Section 34 and 149 of the IPC are modes for apportioning vicarious liability on the individual members of a group, there exist a few important differences between these two provisions. Whereas Section 34 requires active participation and a prior meeting of minds, Section 149 IPC assigns liability merely by membership of the unlawful assembly. In reality, such ‘common intention’ is usually indirectly inferred from conduct of the individuals and only seldom it is done through direct evidence.”

Read More…

Anita Sharma v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2021) 1 SCC 171

The bench of Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose, JJ held that the strict principles of evidence and standards of proof like in a criminal trial are inapplicable in Motor Accident Claims cases.

Read More…

Union of India v. KA Najeeb, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 50

The 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Anirudhha Bose, JJ., refused to interfere with the bail granted by Kerala High Court to KA Najeeb arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 but has imposed the conditions. He shall also refrain from participating in any activity which might enrage communal sentiments.

Read More…

Government of India v. Vedanta Limited, (2020) 10 SCC 1

The 3-judge bench of SA Nazeer, Indu Malhotra and Aniruddha Bose, JJ has dismissed Central Government’s plea against enforcement of a 2011 foreign award passed in favour of Vedanta Limited in a dispute arising out of a contract for exploring and developing the petroleum resources in the Ravva Gas and Oil Fields. The Court held,

“the enforcement of the foreign award does not contravene the public policy of India, or that it is contrary to the basic notions of justice.”

Read More…

Yatin Narendra Oza v. High Court of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 724

The 3-judge bench of SK Kaul, Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari, JJ., observed that the Court would wait for the order of the Gujarat High Court before passing any orders in the issue relating to withdrawal of senior Designation of advocate Narendra Oza. Oza, who is also the President of the Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association, was stripped off his Senior Advocate designation. This has been done after Advocate Oza had levelled charges of corruption against the registry of the Gujarat High Court.

Read More…

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 410

Taking note of the fact that several Tribunals and High Courts have been awarding compensation for loss of consortium and loss of love and affection, the bench directed the Tribunals and High Courts to award compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate conventional head.

“There is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head.”

The 3-judge bench of SA Nazeer, Indu Malhotra and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., were hearing an issue relating to determination of compensation in a motor vehicle accident case.

Read More…

Murali v. State, (2021) 1 SCC 726

The bench of N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., held that unequivocal language of S. 320(9) of CrPC, explicitly prohibits any compounding except as permitted under S. 320 of CrPC. Notwithstanding thereto, fact of amicable settlement/compromise between parties can be a relevant factor for purpose of reduction in quantum of sentence of convicts even in serious non-compoundable offences.


† Editorial Assistant, EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. 

[1] Calcutta High Court, Former Judges

[2] Hon’ble Judges of Jharkhand HC appointed as Judges of the Supreme Court

Know thy Judge

“Pluralism is the soul of democracy. There should be freedom for the thought we hate. Freedom of speech has no meaning if there is no freedom after speech. The reality of democracy is to be measured by the extent of freedom and accommodation it extends.”

-Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul 

Maqbool Fida Husain v. Rajkumar Pandey2008 SCC OnLine Del 562


Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul was born on December 26, 1958. He graduated in Economics (Hons) from St Stephens College, Delhi University in 1979 and later obtained LLB from Campus Law Centre, Delhi University in 1982. He enrolled as an Advocate with Bar Council of Delhi on July 15, 1982 and practiced law at the High Court of Delhi and the Supreme Court of India. He was Advocate-on-Record of the Supreme Court of India from 1987 to 1999 and was designated as a Senior Advocate in December, 1999. He was appointed as Senior Counsel for the Delhi High Court and the Delhi University, was on the Senior panel of Union of India and served as the Additional Senior Standing Counsel for the DDA.

Justice S.K. Kaul was elevated as Additional Judge of the High Court of Delhi on May 03, 2001 and was appointed as a permanent Judge on May 02, 2003. He was appointed as the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court on June 01, 2013 before being sworn-in as Chief Justice of the Madras High Court on July 26, 2014. He was appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India on February 02, 2017.


Notable Judgments at Supreme Court


K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Privacy- 9 Judge), (2017) 10 SCC 1

Justice S.K. Kaul was part of the 9 Judge Bench which unanimously held that, Right to Privacy is a basic fundamental right. The Bench, which also comprised of J.S. Khehar, CJ. and J. Chelameswar, S.A. Bobde, R.K. Agrawal, R.F. Nariman, A.M. Sapre, S.K. Kaul and S.A. Nazeer, JJ., observed that right to privacy is an intrinsic part of right to life and liberty under Article 21 and freedoms guaranteed under Part III of Constitution of India. 

Justice Kaul concurring with the majority view that privacy is a primal and natural right inherent to every individual, recognised the technological development and breach of privacy committed by private individuals, private entities and non-State actors.

“We are in an information age. With the growth and development of technology, more information is now easily available. The information explosion has manifold advantages but also some disadvantages. The access to information, which an individual may not want to give, needs the protection of privacy.”

Justice Kaul observation at that time had far reaching implications and paved the way for rights of LGBT Community as at that time S. 377 of IPC was constitutional. 

“The privacy of the home must protect the family, marriage, procreation and sexual orientation which are all important aspects of dignity……. Ones sexual orientation is undoubtedly an attribute of privacy.” 

Justice Kaul called upon the legislature to legislate on this issue and ensure privacy of individuals and formulated ‘Principle of Proportionality and Legitimacy’. 

“The concerns expressed on behalf of the Petitioners arising from the possibility of the State infringing the right to privacy can be met by the test suggested for limiting the discretion of the State: 

1.The action must be sanctioned by law; 

2.The proposed action must be necessary in a democratic society for a legitimate aim; 

3.The extent of such interference must be proportionate to the need for such interference; 

4.There must be procedural guarantees against abuse of such interference.”

Read More…

Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, (2018) 10 SCC 396

The 5 judges bench comprising of Dipak Misra, CJ. and Kurian Joseph, R.F. Nariman, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Indu Malhotra, JJ., while deciding the issue whether the ‘creamy layer’ among SC/STs should be barred from obtaining promotions through reservations and unanimously held that the judgment delivered in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India; (2010) 12 SCC 526, relating to reservations in promotions for SC/ST persons does not need reconsideration by a larger seven-judge Bench. 

“The whole object of reservation is to see that backward classes of citizens move forward so that they march hand in hand with other citizens of India on an equal basis. This will not be possible if only the creamy layer within that class bag all the coveted jobs in the public sector and perpetuate themselves, leaving the rest of the class as backward as they always were.”

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…

Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 808

“In a democracy, the opposition is not only tolerated as constitutional, but must be maintained because it is indispensable” 

– Walter Lippmann

A 3 judge bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari, JJ., while appreciating the existence of the right to peaceful protest against a legislation observed that 

“such kind of occupation of public ways, whether at the site in question or anywhere else for protests is not acceptable and the administration ought to take action to keep the areas clear of encroachments or obstructions.”

Read More

Balaji Baliram Mupade v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 893

“Delay in delivery of judgments violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

While reminding the High Courts for observing maximum time period for pronouncement of reserved judgment as per Anil Rai v. State of Bihar(2001) 7 SCC 318, the Court observed that 

“Judicial discipline requires promptness in delivery of judgments – an aspect repeatedly emphasized by this Court. The problem is compounded where the result is known but not the reasons. This deprives any aggrieved party of the opportunity to seek further judicial redressal in the next tier of judicial scrutiny.”

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bherulal, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 849

“Supreme Court of India cannot be a place for the Governments to walk in when they choose ignoring the period of limitation prescribed”

A Division bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, dismissing the a Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh with a delay of 663 days, held

“We are thus, constrained to send a signal and we propose to do in all matters today, where there are such inordinate delays that the Government or State authorities coming before us must pay for wastage of judicial time which has its own value.”

Read More…


Notable Judgments at High Court


Khushwant Singh v. Maneka Gandhi, 2001 SCC OnLine Del 1030

“He that publishes a book runs a very great hazard, since nothing can be more impossible than to compose one that may secure the approbation of every reader”

– Miguel De Cervantes.

A Division bench presided by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, dismissing the injunction application filled by respondent, held that the truth regarding the part of the appellant’s autobiography “Truth, Love and a Little Malice” being derogatory, defamatory and incorrect will be determined at the stage of trial in the claim for damages and allowed the appellant to publish his autobiography.

“There is no doubt that there are two competing interests to be balanced as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, that of the author to write and publish and the right of an individual against invasion of privacy and the threat of defamation. However, the balancing of these rights would be considered at the stage of the claim of damages for defamation rather than a preventive action for injuncting of against the publication itself.”

Maqbool Fida Husain v. Rajkumar Pandey, 2008 SCC OnLine Del 562

“Art is never chaste. It ought to be forbidden to ignorant innocents, never allowed into contact with those not sufficiently prepared. Yes, art is dangerous. Where it is chaste, it is not art.”

– Pablo Picasso

The Court observed that

“Ancient Indian art has been never devoid of eroticism where sex worship and graphical representation of the union between man and woman has been a recurring feature….. The ultimate essence of a work of ancient Indian erotic art has been religious in character and can be enunciated as a state of heightened delight or ananda, the kind of bliss that can be experienced only by the spirit.”

The Court ruled that nudity alone cannot said to be obscene. The Court relaying on the facts of the case and authorities cited held that offence alleged under Section 294 IPC cannot be made out. Similarly, the ingredients of Section 298 IPC are not present in this case as there was no deliberate intention on the part of the petitioner to huff the nationalist feelings of an individual or riot any religious feelings. 

The Court emphasized on liberal tolerance and observed that 

“A liberal tolerance of a different point of view causes no damage. It means only a greater self-restraint… Our culture breeds tolerance both in thought and in actions.

According to Justice Kaul,

“There are very few people with a gift to think out of the box and seize opportunities, and therefore such people’s thoughts should not be curtailed by the age-old moral sanctions of a particular section of society having oblique or collateral motives who express their dissent at every drop of a hat.”

Tamilselvan v. Government of T. N., 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 5960

“If you do not like a book, throw it away. There is no compulsion to read a book. Literary tastes may vary — what is right and acceptable to one may not be so to others. Yet, the right to write is unhindered.”

A Division bench of S.K. Kaul, C.J., and Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J., opined that “a book cannot be dismissed merely as sensational, reactionary or mean-spirited” and held that the settlement arrived at the peace meet would not be binding on the author. 

The Court observed that the an attitude of tolerance towards writings have existed for ages and author and artistes like Prof. Perumal Murugan cannot be under a constant apprehension that if he writes something which deviates from well trodden path, he will face adverse consequences. 

‘Let the author be resurrected to what he is best at. Write.’

Read More…

Mahesh Bhatt v. Union of India, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 104

“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.”

– John Stuart Mill

In a writ petition filled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. deciding the issue as to what extent government can regulate commercial speech to safeguard public health, observed that 

“Directors of films should not have multifarious authorities breathing down their necks when indulging in creative art. The concept of censorship itself is a deviation and due care has been taken to incorporate the discouragement of any propagation or advertisement of smoking by incorporating the relevant provisions in the guidelines of the Censor Board.”

The Court struck down Rule. 4(6), 4(6A), 4(6B) and 4(8) of Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Rules, 2004 as they ultra vires the parent Act and are violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. 

Gandhi v. Secretary to the Government, 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 8898

“Every language is a temple, in which the soul of those who speak it is enshrined”

– Oliver Wendell Holmes

A Division bench of S.K. Kaul, C.J. and R. Mahadevan, J, deciding upon the challenge to the grant of ‘Classical’ status to languages like Telugu, Kannada, Odiya, Malayalam etc., opined that the it is for the experts to determine whether a language satisfy the norms to be consideration as ‘Classical’ and the Court cannot go into the opinions and findings of expert body.

Read More…

Babita Puniya v. Secretary, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 1116

“Nature gave women too much power; the law gives them too little.”

– Will Henry

A Division bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, recognising the rights of women to get equal status with their male counterparts in Army and Air force, held that the Short Service Commissioned women officers of the Air Force who had opted for PC and were not granted PC but was granted extension of SSCs and Short Service Commissioned women officers of the Army are entitled to PC at par with male Short Service Commissioned officers with all consequential benefits.

“If these officers have performed equally well in their task which are non-combat in nature and on that basis respondents have extended their period of SSC more than once, it would be gross violation to Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India to accept a situation where such women officers are deprived of a PC while male officers are granted this PC. If this is not discrimination what would be discrimination based on gender and denial of equal opportunity of employment to these women?”


*Editorial Assistant – Trainee, EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. 

Know thy Judge

Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai was born on 24th November, 1960. At the age of 25, he enrolled as an advocate and started practicing at the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court. He served both as a government pleader as well as a government prosecutor[1]. He was appointed as a judge of the Bombay High Court in 2003 and served in that position for 16 years before being elevated to become judge of the Supreme Court. The collegium in recommending him gave due weight to his seniority, integrity, merit and due representation in the Supreme Court.[2].


Some important judgments that Justice BR Gavai has been a part of 


Fertico Marketing and Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 938

The bench of AM Khanwilkar and BR Gavai, JJ  held that not obtaining prior consent of the State Government under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DPSE Act) would not vitiate the investigation unless the illegality in the investigation can be shown to have brought about miscarriage of justice or caused prejudice to the accused.

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 

In re: Prashant Bhushan, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 698

The 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ has sentenced advocate Prashant Bhushan with a fine or Re.1/­ (Rupee one) to be deposited with the Registry by 15.09.2020, failing which he shall undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of three months and further be debarred from practising in this Court for a period of three years. It had found advocate Prashant guilty of criminal contempt on 14.08.2020 in the suo motu contempt petition initiated against him after he criticised the Supreme Court and the sitting and former CJIs in a couple of tweets. 

“If we do not take cognizance of such conduct it will give a wrong message to the lawyers and litigants throughout the country. However, by showing magnanimity, instead of imposing any severe punishment, we are sentencing the contemnor with a nominal fine of  Re.1/­ (Rupee one).”

Read more

Sudru v. State of Chattisgarh, (2019) 8 SCC 333

In this case of murder of son by the accused father, on the basis of circumstantial evidence, last seen evidence and non-explanation of incriminating evidence by accused, conviction of accused confirmed. 

Union of India v. Unicorn Industries, (2019) 10 SCC 575

The 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, MR Shah and BR Gavai, JJ., held that by invoking the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the Union of India cannot be estopped from withdrawing the exemption from payment of Excise Duty in respect of certain products, which exemption is granted by an earlier notification; when the Union of India finds that such a withdrawal is necessary in the public interest.

Read more

Union of India v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1279

The 3-judge Bench of Arun Mishra, MR Shah and BR Gavai, JJ., partially set aside the 2-judge verdict in Dr Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 6 SCC 454. It was held that some portions of the said verdict were against the concept of protective discrimination in favour of down­trodden classes under Article 15(4) of the Constitution and also impermissible within the parameters laid down by this Court for exercise of powers under Article 142 of Constitution of India.  The Court said,

“Can’t treat all of them as a liar.”

Read more

Sarika v. Administrator, Mahakaleshwar Mandir Committee, Ujjain, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 704

 In a bid to prevent the deterioration of Shivlinga at Mahakaleshwar Temple, Ujjain, the 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ has given the eight directions.

Read more

Rishad Murtaza v. Union of India,  2020 SCC OnLine SC 377

 The 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, SK Kaul and BR Gavai, JJ has asked the Central Government to extend the order passed in In Re Contagion of COVID-19 Virus in Children Protection Homes, to Nari Niketans also, if feasable.

Read more

Tata Housing Development Company Ltd. v. Aalok Jagga, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1419

In the matter concerning the housing project, on the ground that the area in question falls within the catchment area of Sukhna Lake and is 123 meters away from the boundary of Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary, the 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, MR Shah and BR Gavai, JJ has held that such projects cannot be permitted to come up within such a short distance from the wildlife sanctuary. Stating that the entire exercise smacks of arbitrariness on the part of Government including functionaries, the bench said that the Court has to perform its duty in such a scenario when the authorities have failed to protect the wildlife sanctuary eco­sensitive zone. It said,

The entire exercise of obtaining clearance relating to the project is quashed. We regret that such a scenario has emerged in the matter and that it involved a large number of MLAs of Punjab Legislative Assembly.

Read more

Anantha Raju v. T.M. Narasimhan, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 969

The 3-Judges Bench comprising of L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai*, JJ., held that when parties deliberately put their agreement into writing, it is conclusively presumed that they intended the writing to form a full and final statement of their intentions, and one which should be placed beyond the reach of future controversy, bad faith and treacherous memory.

“It would be inconvenient that matters in writing made by advice and on consideration, and which finally import the certain truth of the agreement of parties should be controlled by averment the parties to be proved by the uncertain testimony of slippery memory.

Read more

Kanwar Amninder Singh v. High Court of Uttarakhand, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).2507/2021, 17-09-2021

The Division Bench of L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ., held that strict Rules Of Evidence do not apply on a departmental enquiry.

The Petitioner, an Additional District Judge in the State of Uttarakhand was facing a departmental enquiry. The grievance of the petitioner was that his application for placing certain documents on record before the Enquiry Officer was rejected on the ground that the Presenting Officer had made an endorsement on the documents that they do not deserve to be admitted in view of Sections 85A and 85B of the Indian Evidence Act.

Read more

Punjab and State Power Corporation Ltd. v. EMTA Coal Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 766

While elaborating the scope of judicial review, Bench of L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., held that,

“It is not for the Court to determine whether a particular policy or a particular decision taken in the fulfilment of that policy is fair.”

Question relating to interpretation of Section 11 of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 which was an outcome of the judgment of this Court’s decision in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary, (2014) 9 SCC 516, and ancillary question pertaining to the scope of judicial review of administrative action of the State authority arose for consideration in the instant appeals.

Read more

Subhranshu Sarkar v. Indrani Sarkar (Nee Das), 2021 SCC OnLine SC 720

The Division Bench of L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ., dissolved a marriage while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India as the marriage was emotionally dead.

Read more

All India Association of Jurists v. Uttaranchal High Court, WP (C) No. 941 of 2021, dated 6-9-2021

 A three-Judge Bench of L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. is considering a writ petition seeking to declare that the right to access to virtual courts through video conferencing is a facet of fundamental rights. The Court has issued notice to various parties including the Bar Council of India, the Supreme Court Bar Association and several High Courts.

Read more

Common Cause v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 687

A Division Bench of L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ. upheld the Central Government’s order extending the tenure of the incumbent Director of Enforcement Sanjay Kumar Mishra for a period of one year. The Supreme Court held that there is no fetter on the power of the Central Government in appointing the Director of Enforcement beyond a period of two years. Interpreting Section 25 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 which prescribes the minimum tenure of the Director of Enforcement, the Court observed:

“The words ‘not less than two years’ cannot be read to mean ‘not more than two years’ and there is no fetter on the power of the Central Government in appointing the Director of Enforcement beyond a period of two years.”

Read more

Madhya Kshetra Basmati Growers Association Samiti v. Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Chennai, Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No (s). 8461 of 2020, decided on 2-9-2021

The Bench of L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., addressed a matter with respect to registration of ‘Basmati’ as a Geographical Indication for basmati rice.

In the present matter, the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (“APEDA”) filed an application before the Assistant Registrar of the Geographical Indications Registry, Chennai to register ‘Basmati’ as a Geographical Indication in Class 30 under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.

Read more

Brajesh Singh v. Sunil Arora, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 571

A Division Bench comprising of R.F. Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ. found several political parties guilty of contempt of court for non-compliance of directions given by the Supreme Court in Rambabu Singh Thakur v. Sunil Arora, (2020) 3 SCC 733 in connection with disclosure of information of candidates with criminal antecedents. Penalties have been imposed on the political parties found guilty. The Court also issued further directions in order to make the right of information of a voter more effective and meaningful.

Read more

Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Limited, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 557

Holding that an award passed by Emergency Arbitrator is enforceable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a Division Bench of R.F. Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ., ruled in favour of Amazon in the infamous Future-Amazon dispute. It was held that the interim award in favour of Amazon, passed by the Emergency Arbitrator appointed under the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre is enforceable under the Indian Arbitration Act. The Court declared that full party autonomy is given by the Arbitration Act to have a dispute decided in accordance with institutional rules which can include Emergency Arbitrators delivering interim orders. 

Read More

Union of India v. Rajendra N. Shah, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 474

A 3-Judge Bench of the Court held that the Constitution (97th Amendment) Act, 2011 which inter alia inserted Part IX-B is ultra vires the Constitution insofar it is concerned with the subject of Cooperative Societies for want of the requisite ratification under Article 368(2) proviso. At the same time, the Court by a majority of 2:1, followed doctrine of severability in declaring that Part IX-B is operative insofar as it concerns Multi-State Cooperative Societies both within various States and in Union Territories.  R.F. Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ., formed the majority, whereas K.M. Joseph, J. penned a separate opinion dissenting partly with the majority. He expressed inability to concur with the view on the application of doctrine of severability. 

Read More

Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd v. Ravindranath Rao Sindhia, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 171

Division Bench of R.F. Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ., addressed an important case regarding nature of arbitration under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Bench ruled, if at least one of the parties was either a foreign national, or habitually resident in any country other than India; or by a body corporate which was incorporated in any country other than India; or by the Government of a foreign country, the arbitration would become an international commercial arbitration notwithstanding the fact that the individual, body corporate, or government of a foreign country carry on business in India through a business office in India.

Read More

PSA SICAL Terminals (P) Ltd. v. V.O. Chidambranar Port Trust, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 508

Division Bench comprising of R.F. Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ. held that an arbitral award which is based on no evidence and/or in ignorance of evidence would come under the realm of patent illegality. The Court also held that an arbitrator cannot rewrite the contract for the parties. Read More

Navinchandra Steels (P) Ltd. v. Srei Equipment Finance Ltd., (2021) 4 SCC 435

The Division Bench of Rohinton Fali Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ., addressed the instant appeal involving the question that whether an insolvency proceedings could be initiated after the winding up application had been admitted under the Companies Act. The Bench stated, that,“…every effort should be made to resuscitate the corporate debtor in the larger public interest, which includes not only the workmen of the corporate debtor, but also its creditors and the goods it produces in the larger interest of the economy of the country.”

Read More

Gemini Bay Transcription (P) Ltd. v. Integrated Sales Service Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 572

 A Division Bench comprising of R.F. Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ. held that a foreign arbitral award is enforceable against non-signatories to arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court reiterated that grounds for resisting a foreign arbitral award contained in Section 48(1)(a) to (e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are to be narrowly construed, and that a non-signatory’s objection cannot possibly fit into Section 48(1)(a). Furthermore, a foreign arbitral award cannot be challenged on the ground of “perversity”.

Read more

Nayan Tara v. Ritu Maheshwari, Contempt Pet. (C) No. 316/2021

The Division Bench comprising of Rohinton Fali Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ., settled a decade-old land-acquisition dispute by directing NOIDA (New Okhla Industrial Development Authority) to pay compensation to the aggrieved land-owners who were dispossessed of their land by the authority without any land acquisition proceeding and without the authority of law

Read more

National Highways v. M. Hakeem,  2021 SCC OnLine SC 473

The Division Bench of R.F. Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ., while addressing a significant and interesting question of law expressed that,

“If one were to include the power to modify an award in Section 34, one would be crossing the Lakshman Rekha”

Read more

Shital Fibers Ltd. v. Indian Acrylics Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 281

In a corporate dispute case, the 3-Judge Bench comprising of R.F. Nariman, B.R. Gavai* and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ., held that,

“The company Court while exercising its powers under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act would not be in a position to decide, as to who was at fault in not complying with the terms and conditions of the deed of settlement and the compromise deed.”

Read more

M/S Utkal Suppliers v. M/S Maa Kanak Durga Enterprices,  2021 SCC OnLine SC 301

The Division Bench comprising of Rohinton Fali Nariman* and B.R. Gavai, JJ., addressed the issue of overstepping of review jurisdiction by the High Courts in policy matters. The Bench expressed,

“Judicial review in these matters is equivalent to judicial restraint in these matters…the writ court does not have the expertise to correct such decisions by substituting its own decision for the decision of the authority.”

Read more

Navinchandra Steels (P) Ltd. v. SREI Equipment Finance Ltd., (2021) 4 SCC 435

The Division Bench of Rohinton Fali Nariman* and B.R. Gavai, JJ., addressed the instant appeal involving the question that whether an insolvency proceedings could be initiated after the winding up application had been admitted under the Companies Act. The Bench stated,

“…every effort should be made to resuscitate the corporate debtor in the larger public interest, which includes not only the workmen of the corporate debtor, but also its creditors and the goods it produces in the larger interest of the economy of the country.

Read more

State of Kerala v. Mother Superior Adoration Convent, (2021) 5 SCC 602

The Division Bench comprising of R. F. Nariman* and B.R. Gavai, JJ., addressed the instant case regarding statutory interpretation.  The issue before the Bench was whether a residential accommodation for nuns and hostel for students would fall under “religious or educational purposes” for the purpose of tax exemption. The Bench expressed,

“We must first ask ourselves what is the object sought to be achieved by the provision, and construe the statute in accord with such object. And on the assumption that any ambiguity arises in such construction, such ambiguity must be in favour of that which is exempted.”

Read more

Amway India Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Ravindranath Rao Sindhia, (2021) 8 SCC 465 

The Division Bench of R.F. Nariman* and B.R. Gavai, JJ., addressed an important case regarding nature of arbitration under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Bench ruled,

“If at least one of the parties was either a foreign national, or habitually resident in any country other than India; or by a body corporate which was incorporated in any country other than India; or by the Government of a foreign country, the arbitration would become an international commercial arbitration notwithstanding the fact that the individual, body corporate, or government of a foreign country carry on business in India through a business office in India.”

Read more

Ram Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 142

In a 38 year old case relating to murder the 3-Judge Bench of Rohinton Fali Nariman, Hemant Gupta* and B.R. Gavai, JJ., had held

“The ossification test conducted in year 2020 when the appellant was 55 years of age cannot be conclusive to declare him as a juvenile on the date of the incident.”

Read more

Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 29,

B.R. Gavai, J., while addressing a contempt petition expressed that:

“…contempt proceeding is not like an execution proceeding under the Code of Civil Procedure.”

“…contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and the standard of proof required is in the same manner as in the other criminal cases.”

“A mere objection to jurisdiction does not instantly disable the Court from passing any interim orders.”

The instant contempt petition arose out of an unfortunate family dispute between a father and his two sons from his first wife.

Read more


*Associate Editor, EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. 

[1]SC Collegium recommends Justices BR Gavai, Surya Kant for elevation to top court, Scroll, last updated May 09, 2019,

[2] Supreme Court Observer, Judges’ archive

Know thy Judge

“Our ability to recognise others who are different is a sign of our own evolution. We miss the symbols of a compassionate and humane society only at our peril”.   

Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1


Early Life


Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud was born on 11-11-1959 to former Chief Justice of India, Justice Y.V. Chandrachud. He practiced law at the Bomaby High Court and Supreme Court of India. He was designated as Senior Advocate by the Bombay High Court in June 1998 and in the same year was appointed as the Additional Solicitor General of India. He appeared in several important cases involving Rights of Bonded Women Workers, Rights of HIV Positive Workers, Contract Labour and Rights of Religious and Linguistic Minorities.[1]


Journey to becoming Supreme Court Judge


On 29th March 2000, Justice Chandrachud was appointed as Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court. On 31st October 2013, he took oath as the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court until he was appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court on 13th May 2016.[2]

Did you Know? Justice Chandrachud is likely to serve as the Chief Justice of India for a period of 2 years starting from November, 2022 to November, 2024. His father, Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, was the longest serving Chief Justice of India. [Read more about Justice Y.V. Chandrachud here]


Recent and Notable Judgments that Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud has been a part of


Nitisha v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 261

In major win for women Officer in Indian Army, the Division Bench of Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ., held that the administrative requirement imposed by the Indian Army authorities while considering the case of the Women Short Service Commissions Officers (WSSCO) for the grant of Permanent Commission (PC), of benchmarking these officers with the officers lowest in merit in the corresponding male batch is arbitrary and irrational. The Court hence, directed that such requirement shall not be enforced while implementing the decision in Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya, (2020) 7 SCC 469

“It is not enough to proudly state that women officers are allowed to serve the nation in the Armed Forces, when the true picture of their service conditions tells a different story. A superficial sense of equality is not in the true spirit of the Constitution and attempts to make equality only symbolic.”

Read More

Mahendra K.C. v. State of Karnataka, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1021

In a case where the Single Judge of Karnataka High Court had termed person committing suicide a ‘weakling’ and also made observations on how the behavior of the deceased before he committed suicide was not that of a person who is depressed and suffering from mental health issues, the bench of Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., held that such observations describing the manner in which a depressed person ought to have behaved deeply diminishes the gravity of mental health issues and that “The mental health of a person cannot be compressed into a one size fits all approach.”

“Individual personality differences manifest as a variation in the behavior of people. Therefore, how an individual copes up with a threat- both physical and emotional, expressing (or refraining to express) love, loss, sorrow and happiness, varies greatly in view of the multi-faceted nature of the human mind and emotions.”

Read More

Hariram Bhambhi v. Satyanarayan, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1010

In a case where Rajasthan High Court had granted bail by merely “keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case”, the bench of Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., held that such orders cannot pass muster. Noticing that there was absolutely no reasoning in the order of the High Court granting bail, after recording the submissions of the first respondent’s counsel apart from noting that the public prosecutor had opposed the bail, the Court said,

“The duty to record reasons cannot be obviated by recording submissions, followed by an omnibus “in the facts and circumstances” formula. Brief reasons which indicate the basis for granting bail are essential, for it is the reasons adduced by the court which indicate the basis of the order.”

Read More

Sarabjeet Singh Mokha v. District Magistrate, Jabalpur, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1019

In a case where the Government caused unreasonable delay in considering the representation and thereafter failed to communicate the rejection to a person detained under Section 3(2) of National Security Act 1980 (NSA), the 3-judge bench of Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Vikram Seth and BV Nagarathna, JJ., held that the procedural rights of the detenu emanating from Article 22 of the Constitution and Section 8 of the NSA were not sufficiently protected in the present case. Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J., observed that, “Preventive detention in independent India is to be exercised with utmost regard to constitutional safeguards”.

“The State Government cannot expect this Court to uphold its powers of subjective satisfaction to detain a person, while violating the procedural guarantees of the detenu that are fundamental to the laws of preventive detention enshrined in the Constitution.”

Read More

Jalkal Vibhag Nagar Nigam v. Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 960

The 3-judge bench of Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., upheld the validity of Sections 52 (1)(a), Section 55(b)(1) and Section 56 of the UP Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 and held that the levy under Section 52 falls squarely under the ambit of Entry 49 of List II as it is in the nature of a tax and not a fee. The Court also went on to hold that the levy which is imposed under Section 52 is a tax on lands and buildings within the meaning of Entry 49 of List II.

Read More

V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 959

Dealing with the question as to when will the clock for calculating the limitation period run for proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), the bench of Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., held that Sections 61(1) and (2) of the IBC consciously omit the requirement of limitation being computed from when the “order is made available to the aggrieved party”, in contradistinction to Section 421(3) of the Companies Act.

“… the omission of the words “from the date on which the order is made available” for the purposes of computation of limitation in Section 61(2) of the IBC, is a consistent signal of the intention of the legislature to nudge the parties to be proactive and facilitate timely resolution.”

Read More

CBI v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 923

The 3-judge bench of Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., held that a Preliminary Enquiry is not mandatory in all cases which involve allegations of corruption. The Court said that in case the information received by the CBI, through a complaint or a “source information”, discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, it can directly register a Regular Case instead of conducting a Preliminary Enquiry, where the officer is satisfied that the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. Holding that the institution of a Preliminary Enquiry in cases of corruption is not made mandatory before the registration of an FIR under the CrPC, Prevention of Corruption Act or even the CBI Manual, the Court said that issuing a direction to that affect will be “tantamount to stepping into the legislative domain.”

Read More

Union of India v. VKC Footsteps India (P) Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 706

The division bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud and MR Shah, JJ has upheld the validity of Section 54(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) which provides for refund of unutilised input tax credit (ITC) in certain cases.

“A claim to refund is governed by statute. There is no constitutional entitlement to seek a refund.”

Read More

Saregama India Limited v. Next Radio Limited, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 817

The Division Bench comprising of Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and B. V. Nagarathna, JJ., set aside the impugned interim order of Madras High Court holding it to be an attempt to re-write Rule 29(4) of the Copyright Rules 2013. The Bench remarked that, “The interim order converts the second proviso into a “routine procedure” instead of an exception (as the High Court has described its direction). This exercise by the High Court amounts to re-writing. Such an exercise of judicial redrafting of legislation or delegated legislation cannot be carried out.”

Read More

Jamia Masjid v. K.V. Rudrappa, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 792

In an important ruling on Res Judicata, the 3-judge bench of Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and Hima Kohli, JJ., has held that the issues that arise in a subsequent suit may either be questions of fact or of law or mixed questions of law and fact.

“Issues that arise in a subsequent suit may either be questions of fact or of law or mixed questions of law and fact. An alteration in the circumstances after the decision in the first suit, will require a trial for the determination of the plea of res judicata if there arises a new fact which has to be proved”.

Read More

Chief Election Commissioner of India v. M.R. Vijayabhaskar, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 364

In the instant matter, the Division Bench of Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ., addressed the larger issues of the freedom of speech and expression of the media, the right to information of citizens and the accountability of the judiciary to the nation, within the core question of “whether a constitutional body (the Election Commission of India) can set up a plea that constitutional status is an immunity from judicial oversight?” The Bench held that there was no substance in the prayer of the EC for restraining the media from reporting on court proceedings.

“This Court stands as a staunch proponent of the freedom of the media to report court proceedings. This we believe is integral to the freedom of speech and expression of those who speak, of those who wish to hear and to be heard and above all, in holding the judiciary accountable to the values which justify its existence as a constitutional institution.

Distribution of Essential Supplies and Services During Pandemic, In re, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 372

The 3-judge bench of Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ., clarified that the purpose for taking the suo motu cognisance the “grim” situation of the country hit by the second wave of COVID-19 pandemic and non-availability of COVID-19 essentials was not to supplant or to substitute the judicial process which is being conducted in several High Courts across the country under Article 226 of the Constitution.

“The High Courts are well suited to make an assessment of the ground realities which prevail in each State and to find flexible solutions to deal with practical concerns of and the serious hardships faced by the citizens. Hence, there is no reason or justification to interdict the exercise of the jurisdiction of the High Courts in responding to the human problems faced by the citizens in the States and Union Territories and to find solutions with the cooperation of the authorities.”

Read More

Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 2 SCC 427

In a case where the Bombay High Court failed to evaluate even prima facie of the most basic issue, thereby refusing bail to the accused, the bench of Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee, JJ., reminded the High Courts and District Courts of their duty to ensure human liberty. Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud who authored the decision, observed that, “Law should not become a ruse for targeted harassment”.

“Liberty survives by the vigilance of her citizens, on the cacophony of the media and in the dusty corridors of courts alive to the rule of (and not by) law. Yet, much too often, liberty is a casualty when one of these components is found wanting”.

Read More

State of Gujarat v. Narayan, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 949

The bench of Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., formulated “broad, general” principles governing rules for granting parole and furlough, holding that parole and furlough are distinct in nature and that although furlough can be claimed without a reason, the prisoner does not have an absolute legal right to claim furlough.

Read More

Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya, (2020) 7 SCC 469

In this major verdict, the bench of Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi, JJ., ordered that the permanent commission will apply to all women officers in the Indian Army in service, irrespective of their years of service. Holding that the blanket non- consideration of women for criteria or command appointments absent an individuated justification by the Army cannot be sustained in law, the Court said that the Army has provided no justification in discharging its burden as to why women across the board should not be considered for any criteria or command appointments. Command assignments are not automatic for men SSC officers who are granted PC and would not be automatic for women either.

Read more

Rajesh v. State of Haryana, (2021) 1 SCC 118

The 3-judge bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee, JJ., summarised the principles relating to conduct of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) and held that

“… the identification in the course of a TIP is intended to lend assurance to the identity of the accused. The finding of guilt cannot be based purely on the refusal of the accused to undergo an identification parade.”

Read more

K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Privacy- 9 Judge),(2017) 10 SCC 1

Justice Chandrachud was part of the 9 Judge Bench which unanimously held that, Right to Privacy is a basic fundamental right. The Bench, which also comprised of J.S. Khehar, CJ. and J. Chelameswar, S.A. Bobde, R.K. Agrawal, R.F. Nariman, A.M. Sapre, S.K. Kaul and S.A. Nazeer, JJ., observed that Right to Privacy forms an intrinsic part of Art. 21 and freedoms guaranteed in Pt. III. It permeates core of Preambular philosophy underlying “liberty” and “dignity” as also human concepts of “life” and “personal liberty” enshrined in Art. 21 and wide ranging freedoms guaranteed under Pt. III, considered essential for a meaningful human existence. Dr. Chandrachud, J., writing for himself and on behalf of J.S. Khehar, CJ, R.K. Agrawal and S.A. Nazeer, JJ, said that Privacy includes at its core the preservation of personal intimacies, the sanctity of family life, marriage, procreation, the home and sexual orientation. He added,

“While the legitimate expectation of privacy may vary from the intimate zone to the private zone and from the private to the public arenas, it is important to underscore that privacy is not lost or surrendered merely because the individual is in a public place. Privacy attaches to the person since it is an essential facet of the dignity of the human being”.

Read more

Did you Know? The Privacy case also marked a unique moment in judicial history of India; as Justice Chandrachud overruled the ADM Jabalpur decision in which his father, Late Justice Y.V. Chandrachud was part of the majority. Terming the judgments rendered by the majority as “seriously flawed”, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J., observed that-

H.R. Khanna, J. was clearly right in holding that the recognition of the right to life and personal liberty under the Constitution does not denude the existence of that right, apart from it nor can there be a fatuous assumption that in adopting the Constitution the people of India surrendered the most precious aspect of the human persona, namely, life, liberty and freedom to the State on whose mercy these rights would depend”.

Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1

In this landmark 5 -Judge Bench decision which became instrumental in upholding the rights of the LGBT community, Dipak Misra, CJ., and R.F. Nariman, A.M. Khanwilkar, Dr D.Y. Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, JJ., held Section 377 IPC to be unconstitutional insofar it criminalised gay sex between consenting adults. The Bench reversed the 2-Judge Bench decision in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation, (2014) 1 SCC 1.

In his concurring opinion, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J., while stating that, “It is difficult to right the wrongs of history. But we can certainly set the course for the Future, held that lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders have a constitutional right to equal citizenship in all its manifestations. Sexual orientation is recognised and protected by the Constitution.

Read more

Joseph Shine v. Union of India,(2019) 3 SCC 39

The 5-Judge Constitution Bench held Section 497 IPC and Section 198 (2) CrPC to be unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 15 (1) and 21 of the Constitution. Dipak Misra, C.J., delivered the leading judgment for himself and A.M. Khanwilkar, J. While R.F. Nariman, Dr D.Y. Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, JJ., each delivered their separate concurring opinions. Referring to several foreign courts’ judgments and opinions of celebrated authors, Dr. Chandrachud, J. observed that-

“If the ostensible object of the law is to protect the ‘institution of marriage’, it provides no justification for not recognising the agency of a woman whose spouse is engaged in a sexual relationship outside of marriage. She can neither complain nor is the fact that she is in a marital relationship with a man of any significance to the ingredients of the offence. Section 497 is founded on the notion that a woman by entering upon marriage loses, so to speak, her voice, autonomy and agency. Arbitrariness is writ large on the provision”.

Read more  

Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, (2017) 3 SCC 1

Stating that re-promulgation of ordinances is a fraud on the Constitution and a subversion of democratic legislative processes, the 7 Judge Bench held that the Ordinance making power does not constitute the President or the Governor into a parallel source of law making or an independent legislative authority Justice Chandrachud writing down the majority judgment for himself and S.A. Bobde, A.K. Goel, U.U. Lalit and L. Nageswara Rao, JJ., laid down the principles for promulgation of ordinances.

Read more

Common Cause v. Union of India,(2018) 5 SCC 1

The 5-judge Constitution Bench of Dipak Misra, CJ., and AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, JJ., held that the right to die with dignity is a fundamental right as held in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1996) 2 SCC 648 and that ‘passive euthanasia’, both, voluntary and involuntary, is permissible. In his concurring opinion, Dr. Chandrachud, J., observed that,

“While upholding the legality of passive euthanasia (voluntary and non-voluntary) and in recognising the importance of advance directives, the present judgment draws sustenance from the constitutional values of liberty, dignity, autonomy and privacy. In order to lend assurance to a decision taken by the treating doctor in good faith, this judgment has mandated the setting up of committees to exercise a supervisory role and function”.

Read more

 Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M, (2018) 16 SCC 368

The 3-judge bench of Dipak Misra, CJ and AM Khanwilkar and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ., terming the instant case to be perfect example of, “patriarchal autocracy and possibly self-obsession with the feeling that a female is a chattel”, set aside the verdict of Kerala High Court wherein it had annulled the marriage between two consenting adults, namely, Hadiya and Shafin Jahan. Noting that the Kerala HC erred in its decision, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J., in his concurring opinion, came down heavily upon the Kerala HC, stating that,

“The schism between Hadiya and her father may be unfortunate. But it was no part of the jurisdiction of the High Court to decide what it considered to be a “just” way of life or “correct” course of living for Hadiya. She has absolute autonomy over her person. There was no warrant for the High Court to proceed further in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226. The High Court has entered into a domain which is alien to its jurisdiction in a habeas corpus petition. How Hadiya chooses to lead her life is entirely a matter of her choice”.

Read more     


Notable Dissents


Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar Review-5 J.), (2021) 3 SCC 1

Seeking a review of the decision delivered by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Aadhaar-5 Judge), (2019) 1 SCC 1, the 5 Judge Bench of the Court comprising of A.M. Khanwilkar, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan, S. Abdul Nazeer and B.R. Gavai, JJ., with a ratio of 4:1 dismissed this petition, while observing that, change in the law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.

However, Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud gave his dissenting opinion on the issue and observed that constitutional principles of consistency and rule of law would require that a decision on the Review Petitions should await the reference to the Larger Bench.

“It is important to draw a distinction with a situation where a judgment attains finality and the view propounded by it is disapproved by a larger bench subsequently”.

K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Aadhaar-5 Judge),(2019) 1 SCC 1

The 5- Judge Bench comprising of CJ Dipak Misra and A.K. Sikri, A.M. Khanwilkar, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, JJ., by a majority of 4:1, upheld the constitutional validity of Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016. Justice Chandrachud gave a 23-point conclusion to the opinion wherein he dissented from the majority. In his opinion, the entire Aadhaar programme, since 2009, suffers from the constitutional infirmities and violations of fundamental rights-

“Creating strong privacy protection laws and instilling safeguards may address or at the very least assuage some of the concerns associated with the Aadhar scheme which severely impairs informational self-determination, individual privacy, dignity and autonomy”.

In a sharp criticism on passing of the Aaadhar Act as Money Bill within the meaning of Art.110 of the Constitution, Dr. Chandrachud, J., observed that-

“There is a constitutional trust which attaches to the empowerment of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha to decide whether a legislative measure is a Money Bill. Entrustment of the authority to decide is founded on the expectation that the Speaker of the Lok Sabha will not dilute the existence of a coordinate institution in a bicameral legislature. A constitutional trust has been vested in the office of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. By declaring an ordinary Bill to be a Money Bill, the Speaker limits the role of the Rajya Sabha. This power cannot be unbridled or bereft of judicial scrutiny”. 

Read more

Jindal Stainless Ltd v. State of Haryana,(2017) 12 SCC 1

The 9-judge bench, by a ratio of 7:2, upheld the validity of the entry tax imposed by the States on goods imported from other States. It was 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”. Delivering a dissenting opinion Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J., observed that,

“In order to determine whether a law providing for the imposition of a tax constitutes a restriction on the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse, the principle that must be applied is whether the direct and inevitable effect or consequence of the law is to impede trade and commerce. The direct and inevitable consequence for the purposes of Part XIII of the Constitution is not the same as an infringement of the fundamental right to carry on an occupation, trade or business under Article 19(1)(g)”. He further observed that, “Article 301 sub-serves the constitutional goal of integrating the nation into an economic entity comprising of a common market for goods and services”.

Read more

Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen, (2017) 2 SCC 629 

In a 4:3 verdict, the 7-Judge Bench held that an appeal in the name of religion, race, caste, community or language is impermissible under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and would constitute a corrupt practice sufficient to annul the election in which such an appeal was made regardless whether the appeal was in the name of the candidate’s religion or the religion of the election agent or that of the opponent or that of the voters’. Writing the dissenting opinion for himself and Adarsh K. Goel and U.U. Lalit, JJ.; Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J., observed that ‘his’ as in Section 123(3) of RP Act does not refer to the religion, race, caste, community or language of the voter. Dr. Chandrachud, J., made a very significant observation in his dissent-

“Our Constitution recognises the broad diversity of India and, as a political document, seeks to foster a sense of inclusion. It seeks to wield a nation where its citizens practise different religions, speak varieties of languages, belong to various castes and are of different communities into the concept of one nationhood. The Indian State has no religion nor does the Constitution recognise any religion as a religion of the State. India is not a theocratic State but a secular nation in which there is a respect for and acceptance of the equality between religions”.

Read more

Romila Thapar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 753 

In the instant case wherein 5 human rights activists were charged and arrested under the provisions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and the 3 Judge Bench of the Court with a ratio of 2:1 (Dipak Misra CJ., and A.M. Khanwilkar, J.) rejected their prayer seeking appointment of SIT and court-monitored investigation; Justice D.Y. Chandrachud dissented with the majority. He observed that, “Dissent is a symbol of a vibrant democracy. Voices in opposition cannot be muzzled by persecuting those who take up unpopular causes”. Taking the view that a Special Investigating Team should be appointed to pursue the matter, Dr. Chandrachud, J., stated that,

“The purpose of the direction which I propose to give is to ensure that the basic entitlement of every citizen who is faced with allegations of criminal wrongdoing, is that the investigative process should be fair. This is an integral component of the guarantee against arbitrariness under Article 14 and of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. If this Court were not to stand by the principles which we have formulated, we may witness a soulful requiem to liberty”.


[1] Bombay High Court, Hon’ble Former Justices

[2] Supreme Court of India, Chief Justices and Judges