Know thy Judge

Early Life and Career

  • Born on 11-05-1957 in a Zamindar family of Bijnor (U.P.).
  • Graduated from Allahabad University in the year 1976 and obtained LL.B. Degree in the year 1979/80.
  • Enrolled as an advocate with the U.P. Bar Council on 28-07-1980.
  • Practised in the Allahabad High Court from 28-07-1980 to 13-02-2002 on the original, constitution, civil and criminal sides.
  • Conducted cases for various private and public sector companies and also as special counsel for the Central and State Governments. Served as Additional Advocate General for the State of U.P. in the year 1995.
  • Elevated as permanent Judge of Allahabad High Court on 14-02-2002. Transferred to Karnataka and took oath as Judge of Karnataka High Court on 16-02-2015. Elevated and sworn in as the Chief Justice of Orissa High Court on 26-02-2016.
  • In 2018, the President of India appointed Justice Vineet Saran (Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court) as Judge, Supreme Court of India.

Notable Judgments

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

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…

Bhima Razu Prasad v. State, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 210: The bench of MM Shantanagoudar and Vineet Saran, JJ held that Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC will not bar prosecution by the investigating agency for offence punishable under Section 193 IPC, which is committed during the stage of investigation.

This is provided that the investigating agency has lodged complaint or registered the case under Section 193, IPC prior to commencement of proceedings and production of such evidence before the trial court. In such circumstance, the same would not be considered an offence committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court for the purpose of Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC.

Read more..

High Court of Judicature at Madras Rep. by its Registrar General v. MC Subramaniam, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 109: The bench of MM Shantanagoudar and Vineet Saran, JJ has held that Section 89 of CPC and Section 69-A of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 contemplate the refund of court fees in all methods of out-of-court dispute settlement between parties that the Court subsequently finds to have been legally arrived at and not just to those cases where the Court itself refers the parties to any of the alternative dispute settlement mechanisms listed in Section 89 of the CPC. Read more..

Amitabha Dasgupta v. United Bank of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 124: In a case where United Bank of India inadvertently broke the Appellant’s locker, without any just or reasonable cause, even though he had already cleared his pending dues, the bench of MM Shantanagoudar* and Vineet Sarana, JJ Imposed costs of Rs. 5,00,000/­ on the Bank to be paid to the Appellant as compensation. The said is to be deducted from the salary of the erring officers, if they are still in service and if they have already retired, the amount of costs should be paid by the Bank. Additionally, the Appellant shall be paid Rs. 1,00,000/- as litigation expense. Read more…

Rekha Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 173: In the case where the investigative team has seized the sonography machine and made out a strong prima-facie case against the petitioner, the 3-judge bench of MM Shantanagoudar, Vineet Saran and Ajay Rastogi, JJ held no leniency should be granted at this stage as the same may reinforce the notion that the PC&PNDT Act is only a paper tiger and that clinics and laboratories can carry out sex-determination and feticide with impunity.

“A strict approach has to be adopted if we are to eliminate the scourge of female feticide and iniquity towards girl children from our society.”

Gajanan Babulal Bansode v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 57: The 3-Judge Bench comprising of L. Nageswara Rao, Indu Malhotra and Vineet Saran, JJ heard the petition challenging the decision of Maharashtra government to appoint 636 additional candidates without consulting MPSC (Maharashtra Public Service Commission. The Bench stated,

“It is well-settled in service jurisprudence that the authority cannot fill up more than the notified number of vacancies advertised, as the recruitment of candidates in excess of the notified vacancies, would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of India.”

Read More…

Compack Enterprises India (P) Ltd. v. Beant Singh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 97: The bench of MM Shantanagoudar and Vineet Saran, JJ has lucidly explained the law governing consent decree and has held that the well settled law that consent decrees are intended to create estoppels by judgment against the parties, thereby putting an end to further litigation between the parties, does not apply as a blanket rule in all cases. Read more…

Imperia Structures v. Anil Patni,  2020 SCC OnLine SC 894 : The bench of UU Lalit and Vineet Saran, JJ held that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act) does not bar the initiation of proceedings by allottees against the builders under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Read more… 

Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727:  A 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ has upheld the constitutional validity of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018, and said that a court can grant anticipatory bail only in cases where a prima facie case is not made out. In the unanimous verdict, Justice Mishra penned the opinion for himself and Justice Saran whereas Justice Bhat wrote a separate but concurring opinion. Read more… 

Vijay Kurle, In re, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 407 and Rashid Khan Pathan v. Vijay Kurle, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 711:  After finding advocates Vijay Kurle, Nilesh Ojha and Rashid Khan Pathan guilty of levelling scandalous allegations against Justice RF Nariman and Justice Vineet Saran, the bench of Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ has sentenced all 3 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months each with a fine of Rs. 2000/-. It further said that in default of payment of fine, each of the defaulting contemnors shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. Read: 


 

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In the case where the Supreme Court Registry refused to register the application seeking recall of the order dated 04.05.2020 by which the Court sentenced advocates Vijay Kurle, Nilesh Ojha and Rashid Khan Pathan  to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months each with a fine of Rs. 2000/-, the bench of L/ Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose, JJ dismissed the appeal and imposed an exemplary cost of Rs. 25, 000 on advocate Rashid Khan. While doing so the Court said,

“If the Appellant continues to file such repetitive applications in this litigation which are not maintainable, he will be visited with deterrent actions referred above such as initiation of criminal contempt proceedings or a direction to the Registry that no further applications in this litigation will be received.”

The bench of Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ had on, 27.04.2020, found the 3 advocates guilty of contempt of court in the light of scandalous allegations levelled by them against Justice RF Nariman and Justice Vineet Saran.

“In a country governed by the rule of law, finality of the judgment is absolutely imperative and great sanctity is attached to the finality of the judgment. Permitting the parties to reopen the concluded judgments of this Court by filing repeated interlocutory applications is clearly an abuse of the process of law and would have far-reaching adverse impact on the administration of justice.”

It is worth noting that earlier an application was filed by the contemnors seeking recall of the judgment dated 27.04.2020. This Court was, however, of the opinion that the recall applications were not maintainable and the only proper remedy available to the contemnors is to file a Review Petition.

Hence, calling the present application an abuse of process of court, the bench said,

“The application for recall of an order by which an earlier application for recall of the judgment was dismissed is not maintainable. The only remedy open to the Appellant was to have filed a Review Petition as suggested by this Court in the order dated 04.05.2020.”

The Court held that the order dated 04.05.2020 neither suffered from the vice of lack of jurisdiction nor did it violate the principles of natural justice.

“A perusal of the order dated 04.05.2020 discloses that the Appellant and the other contemnors were heard before the applications were dismissed. Therefore, the contention of the Appellant is without any substance.”

Background of the Contempt proceedings

The basis of the contempt proceedings was two letters dated 20.03.2019 and 19.03.2019 received by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and other judges of the Court, admittedly signed by Vijay Kurle (State President of Maharashtra and Goa of the Indian Bar Association) and Rashid Khan Pathan (National Secretary of the Human Right Security Council) respectively. The Court had already discharged Mathews Nedumpara last year in September, after he denied any role in sending those complaints.

It is pertinent to note that the bench of RF Nariman and Vineet Saran, JJ had barred Nedumpara from practicing as an advocate in the Supreme Court for one year, after he had argued before the Court during a proceeding :

“Judges of the Court are wholly unfit to designate persons as Senior Advocates, as they only designate Judges’ relatives as Senior Advocates.”

He was referring to the judgment where with the intent to make the exercise of senior designation more objective, fair and transparent so as to give full effect to consideration of merit and ability, standing at the bar and specialized knowledge or exposure in any field of law, the 3-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, RF Nariman and Navin Sinha, JJ laid down elaborate guidelines for the system of designation of Senior Advocates in the Supreme Court as well as all the High Courts of India.

He also took the name of Senior Advocate Fali S. Nariman. When cautioned by the Court, he took his name again. Thereafter, on being questioned by the Court as to what the relevance of taking the name of Fali S. Nariman was, he promptly denied having done so.

In it’s order dated 27.04.2020, the Court found all 3 advocates guilty of contempt and said,

 “When we read both the complaints together it is obvious that the alleged contemnors are fighting a proxy battle for Shri Nedumpara. They are raking up certain issues which could have been raised only by Shri Nedumpara and not by the alleged contemnors.”

On 04.05.2020, the Court sentenced all 3 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months each with a fine of Rs. 2000/-. It further said that in default of payment of fine, each of the defaulting contemnors shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.

All 3 of the advocates were not willing to argue on sentence on the ground that according to them the judgment was per incuriam and they had a right to challenge the same. The Court, hence, noticed that there was not an iota of remorse or any semblance of apology on behalf of the contemnors.

[In re Vijay Kurle, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 711, decided on 03.09.2020]


ALSO READ

Scandalous allegations against SC judges| All 3 advocates to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000

Scandalous allegations against SC judges: SC finds all 3 advocates guilty of contempt

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: After finding advocates Vijay Kurle, Nilesh Ojha and Rashid Khan Pathan guilty of levelling scandalous allegations against Justice RF Nariman and Justice Vineet Saran, the bench of Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ has sentenced all 3 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months each with a fine of Rs. 2000/-. It further said that in default of payment of fine, each of the defaulting contemnors shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.

However, keeping in view the COVID-19 pandemic and the lockdown conditions, the Court directed that the sentence shall come into force after 16 weeks from the date of the order

“when the contemnors should surrender before the Secretary General of this Court to undergo the imprisonment. Otherwise, warrants for their arrest shall be issued.”

All 3 of the advocates were not willing to argue on sentence on the ground that according to them the judgment was per incuriam and they had a right to challenge the same. The Court, hence, noticed that there was not an iota of remorse or any semblance of apology on behalf of the contemnors. The Court, hence, said,

“Since they have not argued on sentence, we have to decide the sentence without assistance of the contemnors. In view of the scurrilous and scandalous allegations levelled against the judges of this Court and no remorse being shown by any of the contemnors we are of the considered view that they cannot be let off leniently.”

Background of the Contempt proceedings

The basis of the contempt proceedings was two letters dated 20.03.2019 and 19.03.2019 received by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and other judges of the Court, admittedly signed by Vijay Kurle (State President ofMaharashtra and Goa of the Indian Bar Association) and Rashid Khan Pathan (National Secretary of the Human Right Security Council), respectively. The Court had already discharged Mathews Nedumpara last year in September, after he denied any role in sending those complaints.

It is pertinent to note that the bench of RF Nariman and Vineet Saran, JJ had barred Nedumpara from practicing as an advocate in the Supreme Court for one year, after he had argued before the Court during a proceeding :

“Judges of the Court are wholly unfit to designate persons as Senior Advocates, as they only designate Judges’ relatives as Senior Advocates.”

He was referring to the judgment where with the intent to make the exercise of senior designation more objective, fair and transparent so as to give full effect to consideration of merit and ability, standing at the bar and specialized knowledge or exposure in any field of law, the 3-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, RF Nariman and Navin Sinha, JJ laid down elaborate guidelines for the system of designation of Senior Advocates in the Supreme Court as well as all the High Courts of India.

He also took the name of Senior Advocate Fali S. Nariman. When cautioned by the Court, he took his name again. Thereafter, on being questioned by the Court as to what the relevance of taking the name of Fali S. Nariman was, he promptly denied having done so.

Ruling on guilt

On April 27, 2020, in In re: Vijay Kurle, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 407, the Court held found all 3 advocates guilty of contempt and had said,

“The allegations are also scurrilous and scandalous and such allegations cannot be permitted to be made against the Judges of highest Court of the country.”

Holding both the complaints as ex­facie contemptuous wherein highly scurrilous and scandalous allegations have been levelled against the two judges of this Court, the Court said that though the   alleged contemnors claim that they are not expressing any solidarity with Mathews Nedumpara nor do they have anything personal against Justice R.F. Nariman, the entire reading of the complaints shows a totally different picture.

“When we read both the complaints together it is obvious that the alleged contemnors are fighting a proxy battle for Shri Nedumpara. They are raking up certain issues which could have been raised only by Shri Nedumpara and not by the alleged contemnors.”

[In re: Vijay Kurle, INTERIM APPLICATION NOS. 48502, 48483, 48482 & 48484 OF 2020, decided on 04.05.2020]

 

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court:

In the suo motu contempt proceedings initiated against advocates Vijay Kurle, Rashid Khan Pathan, Nilesh Ojha and Mathews Nedumpara for scandalous allegations against Justice RF Nariman and Justice Vineet Saran, the bench of Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ has held Vijay Kurle, Rashid Khan Pathan and Nilesh Ojha guilty of contempt and has listed the matter 01.05.2020 for hearing the issue of sentence, through video conferencing.

Background of the Contempt proceedings

The basis of the contempt proceedings was two letters dated 20.03.2019 and 19.03.2019 received by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and other judges of the Court, admittedly signed by Vijay Kurle (State President ofMaharashtra and Goa of the Indian Bar Association) and Rashid Khan Pathan (National Secretary of the Human Right Security Council) respectively. The Court had already discharged Mathews Nedumpara last year in September, after he denied any role in sending those complaints.

It is pertinent to note that the bench of RF Nariman and Vineet Saran, JJ had barred Nedumpara from practicing as an advocate in the Supreme Court for one year, after he had argued before the Court during a proceeding :

“Judges of the Court are wholly unfit to designate persons as Senior Advocates, as they only designate Judges’ relatives as Senior Advocates.”

He was referring to the judgment where with the intent to make the exercise of senior designation more objective, fair and transparent so as to give full effect to consideration of merit and ability, standing at the bar and specialized knowledge or exposure in any field of law, the 3-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, RF Nariman and Navin Sinha, JJ laid down elaborate guidelines for the system of designation of Senior Advocates in the Supreme Court as well as all the High Courts of India.

He also took the name of Senior Advocate Fali S. Nariman. When cautioned by the Court, he took his name again. Thereafter, on being questioned by the Court as to what the relevance of taking the name of Fali S. Nariman was, he promptly denied having done so.

Issues raised by the contemnors in 2 very lengthy letters running into more than 250 pages combined:

  • That the Bench of Justice R. F. Nariman and Justice Vineet Saran could not have taken cognizance of the case because the case was not assigned to them by the Chief Justice and that both the Judges acted as Judge in their own cause.
  • That the Bench has not suo motu taken notice of the contempt and therefore the Registry cannot treat it as a suo motu petition.
  • That even in suo motu contempt proceedings the consent of the Attorney General is necessary.
  • That the proper procedure of framing a charge is not followed because the defects at the initial stage cannot be cured by later orders/developments.
  • That the Judges were bound to disclose the source of information.

Some of the excerpts from the letters as highlighted by the Court in the judgment:

  • “The only irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is that there were no malafides on the part of Advocate Nedumpara and if it were put in notice calling explanation in open Court then  would have exposed Justice Nariman in front of advocates and public and that’s why a very strange and different method is adopted by Justice Nariman by pronouncing conviction of advocate.”

  • “misused his power to use material outside the court record and received by personal knowledge without disclosing its source”

  • “The malafides of Justice Rohington Fali Nariman are writ large as can be seen from the fact that the materials relied by him in para 3,4,5,6,7,8 are totally the personal work of Justice Rohington Nariman and as can be easily inferred. It is clear that the most of the material supplied is from Justice S.J. Kathawala of Bombay High Court who in turn is Rohington’s close and rival of Adv. Nedumpara.”

Ruling on contempt

On proxy battle being fought for Advocate Nedumpara

Holding both the complaints as ex­facie contemptuous wherein highly scurrilous and scandalous allegations have been levelled against the two judges of this Court, the Court said that though the   alleged contemnors claim that they are not expressing any solidarity with Mathews Nedumpara nor do they have anything personal against Justice R.F. Nariman, the entire reading of the complaints shows a totally different picture.

“When we read both the complaints together it is obvious that the alleged contemnors are fighting a proxy battle for Shri Nedumpara. They are raking up certain issues which could have been raised only by Shri Nedumpara and not by the alleged contemnors.”

The Court noticed that even if the contemnors wanted to criticise the judgment on the ground of misuse of power, they could have used temperate language.

On the allegations that the material relied upon by Justice Nariman was supplied by Justice Kathawala

The Court noticed that the contemnor failed to prove the same and in fact, a perusal of the material shows that the materials relied upon were a matter of public record and were part of orders passed in cases that Shri Nedumpara appeared in or part of petitions filed by Shri Nedumpara himself. There is not an iota of evidence on record to show that Justice Kathawala is close to Justice Nariman. The contemnor also failed to prove that  Justice Kathawala is a rival of Shri Nedumpara.

“Justice Nariman in his judgment has relied upon the orders passed by the Bombay High Court in various cases. These are all public documents and we fail to understand how the alleged contemnors assumed that these documents were supplied by Justice Kathawala.”

On right to criticise the judgment of Supreme Court

The Court said that

“no doubt, any citizen can comment or criticise the judgment of this Court.  However, that citizen must have some standing or knowledge before challenging the ability, capability, knowledge, honesty, integrity, and impartiality of a Judge of the highest court of the land.”

The Court, however, failed to understand how a person who has mere 7 years of experience at bar with unknown professional credentials, someone who has failed to check the spelling of the name of the judge he claims to have no knowledge of law, can adorn the robes of a Judge to pass judgment on the Judges of the highest court.

On defence of truth

Truth as a defence is available to any person charged with contempt of Court. However, ongoing through all the written arguments and the pleadings, other than saying that the Judges had misinterpreted the judgments of this Court or had ignored them or that Justice R.F. Nariman was biased, there is no material placed on record to support this defence.

“The allegations are also scurrilous and scandalous and such allegations cannot be permitted to be made against the Judges of highest Court of the country.”

[In re: Vijay Kurle, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 407 , decided on 27.04.2020]