Appointments & TransfersNews

The President is pleased to appoint Shri Justice Sanjay Yadav, Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, to perform the duties of the office of Chief Justice of that High Court with effect from the date Shri Justice Ravi Shanker Jha relinquishes the charge as Acting Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court consequent upon his appointment as Chief Justice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court.


Ministry of Law and Justice

[Notification dt. 05-10-2019]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Proposal for the appointment of following five Advocates, as Judges of the Madhya Pradesh High Court:
1. Divesh Jain,
2. Sanjay Sarwate,
3. Archana Kher,
4. Vishal Dhagat, and
5. Vishal Mishra

“Collegium had an interaction with all the recommendees on 1st April, 2019. On the basis of interaction and having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the considered view that S/Shri (1) Vishal Dhagat and (2) Vishal Mishra (mentioned at Sl. Nos. 4 and 5 above) are suitable for being appointed as Judges of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.”

“As regards S/Shri (1) Divesh Jain, (2) Sanjay Sarwate, and (3) Smt. Archana Kher, (mentioned at Sl. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 above) having regard to all relevant factors and the material placed in the file, the Collegium is of the considered view that the proposal for their elevation deserves to be remitted to the Madhya Pradesh High Court.”

Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ. resolves to recommend that S/Shri (1) Vishal Dhagat, and (2) Vishal Mishra, Advocates be appointed as Judges of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Their inter se seniority be fixed as per the existing practice.


[Resolution dt. 10-05-2019]

Collegium Resolutions

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court:  In an order passed by Sujoy Paul J.  upholding the law laid down by the Supreme Court, it was held that the Reserved Category candidates are entitled to be considered against the posts for the General Category and the only requirement shall be that such candidate should be eligible in all respects except for the caste.

In the instant case, two petitions were put before the Court for consideration. In the first petition the petitioner, who was a SC category candidate had been given compassionate appointment against a General category post initially, but the appointment had been cancelled by an order for the reason that no posts in the “SC category” had been vacant. In the second petition, the petitioner being an ST category candidate was denied appointment on the grounds that no post in the “ST category” had been lying vacant.

The Court observed that in both the cases, non-availability of reserved category post was the reason for cancellation and the non-grant of appointment of the candidates. Having heard the submissions of the counsel for the parties, the Court relied on the law laid down in R. K. Sabharwal vs. State of Punjab  (1995) 2 SCC 754 and held that the reserved category candidates cannot be denied appointment against a General category post merely because of being reserved category candidate and are entitled to be considered against a General category post, given that they are eligible in all respects except for the caste. The only test should be that the candidates shall fulfill all eligibility, qualifications, requirements, etc. for the General category post. It was also held in the order that, however, General category candidates would not have any such right to be considered against a reserved category post. The Court held that, in the support the principle law laid down by the Supreme Court, rejection of the petitioner’s candidature/appointment cannot be countenanced. Therefore, the petition was allowed and the impugned orders were set aside. [Jitendra vs. State of M.P., 2016 SCC OnLine MP 1681, Ordered on 20.07.2016]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: Stating that the Trial Court should never consider itself as a “Post Officer or a mouth piece of the Prosecution”, the bench comprising of Atul Sreedharan, J., said that Section 227 and 228 of the CrPC make it incumbent upon the Session Court to consider the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and thereafter having heard the accused and the prosecution, decide whether the accused shall be charged for the offence or discharged.

In the instant case, the material on record allegedly shows that the Petitioners has expressed an intention to beat up the deceased, but the investigation, including the post mortem report, had at no point suggested that they had succeeded in doing so. There was no evidence to show that they had been near him that day, or that they had been the proximate cause, or had abetted the deceased’s suicide by instigation, pressure or assistance. The Court hence, allowed the Criminal Revision petition filed by the Petitioners against the framing of charges under Section. 306, Penal Code by the Trial Court, thereby discharging the Petitioners.

The Court noted that to charge a person under Section 306 IPC, as per various Supreme Court rulings, it was essential for prosecution to establish prima facie that the actions of the accused were directly responsible for inducing the deceased to commit suicide, and satisfy the ingredients of Section 107 IPC. The Court cited Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC  4 wherein it was laid down that the Trial Court at the stage of framing of charges was obliged to sift through the evidence only to the extent necessary to determine if a prima facie charge was constituted by the evidence, and it was competent to discharge an accused if the evidence disclosed ‘some suspicion’, not ‘grave suspicion’. Reasons are required to discharge, but to frame, an opinion suffices, as supported by the holding in Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of West Bengal (2000) 1 SCC 722. However, the court delineated that pursuant to State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa (1996) 4 SCC 659, at the trial court stage the Trial Court ‘should (a) apply its judicial mind to the materials placed on the record as (b) framing of charges substantially affects the liberty of the person concerned’.

The Court held that Section 228 (1) CrPC made it essential for the Court to arrive at an opinion, and that such an opinion could only be formed on the ‘basis’ of materials on record; a ‘basis’ that it was essential for the Trial Court to state. Hence, it was held that the impugned order was bad in law for deficiency in stating the basis for the opinion that charges be framed under Section 306 IPC.  [Ramnaresh V State of Madhya Pradesh, 2016 SCC OnLine MP 838, 14-06-2016]