{"id":269229,"date":"2022-06-29T15:00:31","date_gmt":"2022-06-29T09:30:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=269229"},"modified":"2022-06-29T14:16:08","modified_gmt":"2022-06-29T08:46:08","slug":"know-thy-judge-justice-jitendra-kumar-maheshwari","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/29\/know-thy-judge-justice-jitendra-kumar-maheshwari\/","title":{"rendered":"Know Thy Judge| Justice Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

   <\/p>\n

Early life<\/span><\/p>\n

Justice Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari, now elevated as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India on August 31, 2021, was born on June 29, 1961 in a small town Joura, District Morena (M.P.). He graduated in Arts in 1982 and passed LL.B. in 1985 and completed LL.M in 1991. He got himself enrolled as an Advocate with the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh on November 22, 1985 and practiced in Civil, Criminal, Constitutional, Service and Tax matters. He was the elected member of the M.P. State Bar Council.<\/p>\n

He was appointed as Additional Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on November 25, 2005 and on November 25, 2008, appointed as permanent Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. He has been a part of various committees, pertaining to betterment of administration of High court of Madhya Pradesh and continued his good offices till October 06 ,2019.He was transferred as Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court and assumed office on October 07, 2019. He was the First Chief Justice of the newly established Andhra Pradesh High Court.<\/p>\n

Later, he was transferred as the Chief Justice of the High Court of Sikkim on January 06, 2021. He is due to retire on June 29, 2026.1<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

He is known for his humble nature and diligent attitude. In his farewell speech from the Andhra Pradesh High Court he got very emotional and gave all the credits to his counterparts, colleagues and staff. He in his speech with utmost humility stated that ” I have done nothing, in fact the credit has come to me by those who deserve credit”.2<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Did You Know?<\/span> There was no Bungalow for Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh, he had identified and got completed the construction of Chief Justice Bungalow at Vijaywada Andhra Pradesh.3<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Let’s take a look at his notable judgments<\/span>:<\/p>\n

Supreme Court<\/span> <\/p>\n

Union of India<\/i> v. Methu Meda<\/i>, (2022) 1 SCC 1<\/a> [Appointment<\/span>]<\/p>\n

It was held that if a person is acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt, from the charge of an offence involving moral turpitude or because the witnesses turned hostile, it would not automatically entitle him for the employment, that too in disciplined force. The employer is having a right to consider his candidature in terms of the circulars issued by the Screening Committee. The mere disclosure of the offences alleged and the result of the trial is not sufficient. In the said situation, the employer cannot be compelled to give appointment to the candidate. Both the Single Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court have not considered the said legal position.<\/p>\n

Vasudev<\/i> v. State of M.P.<\/i>, (2022) 4 SCC 735<\/a> [Attempt to murder<\/span>]<\/p>\n

The High Court, while convicting the appellant by the impugned judgment [Rajesh<\/i> v. State of M.P.<\/i>, 2020 SCC OnLine MP 4590<\/a>], had merely observed that because the accused were prized goons and were absconding and as per the deposition, it could not be said that Appellant 2 was not involved because he was arrested on the spot and taken to police station. In this regard, the Court observed that the prosecution was required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction cannot be based merely on the basis of presumption to rule out the presence of accused.<\/p>\n

Gangadhar Narayan Nayak<\/i> v. State of Karnataka<\/i>, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 337<\/a> [Crimes Against Women and Children; Disclosure of victim’s identity]<\/span><\/p>\n

The Appellant was the Editor of Karavali Munjavu Newspaper. On or about 27-10- 2017, a news report was published in the Newspaper, Karavali Munjavu, regarding the sexual harassment of a 16 year old girl. The victim was named in the said report. The Court reiterated that  the entire object of provisions such as Section 228A of the IPC, 327(2) of the Cr.P.C., Section 74 of the JJ Act and Section 23 of POCSO is to prevent disclosure of the identity of the victim. The identity of the victim should not be discernible from any matter published in the media. Appeal was partly allowed.<\/p>\n

Arcelormittal Nippon Steel (India) Ltd.<\/i> v. Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd.<\/i>, (2022) 1 SCC 712<\/a> [Arbitration<\/span>]<\/p>\n

Division Bench comprising of Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. held that once an Arbitral Tribunal is constituted, the court would not take up for consideration and apply its mind to an application for an interim measure, unless the remedy of applying to the arbitral tribunal for interim relief is inefficacious. However, this bar does not operate where already the application has been taken up for consideration and the court has applied its mind.<\/p>\n

Read more…<\/a><\/p>\n

Pahwa Plastics (P) Ltd.<\/i> v. Dastak NGO<\/i>, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 362<\/a> [Environment Protection<\/b>]<\/p>\n

The Division Bench comprising of Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ., held that although to protect future generations and to ensure sustainable development, it is imperative that pollution laws be strictly enforced, were the adverse consequences of denial of ex post facto approval of Environment Clearance outweigh the consequences of regularization of operations by grant of ex post facto approval, and the establishment concerned otherwise conforms to the requisite pollution norms, ex post facto approval should be given in accordance with law, in strict conformity with the applicable Rules, Regulations and\/or Notifications.<\/p>\n

Read more…<\/a><\/p>\n

GPR Power Solutions (P) Ltd.<\/i> v. Supriyo Chaudhuri<\/i>, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1328<\/a> [Limitation<\/b>]<\/p>\n

In a case relating to Corporate Insolvency, the Division Bench comprising of Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ., quashed the order of NCLAT rejecting the application under S. 60(5) of IBC. The Bench held that the NCLAT and NCLT had failed to consider the law laid down by the Court with regard to extension of limitation period due to Covid-19 pandemic.<\/p>\n

Read more…<\/a><\/p>\n

Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/b><\/p>\n

Supa<\/i> v. Deepa<\/i>, 2018 SCC OnLine MP 804<\/a> <\/p>\n

It was held that Appointment of a person accused in a criminal case was rightly rejected by appointing authority. <\/p>\n

Read more…<\/a><\/p>\n

Afjal Khan<\/i> v. State of M.P.<\/i>, 2019 SCC OnLine MP 1672<\/a><\/p>\n

A Division Bench of J.K. Maheshwari and Anjuli Palo, JJ. partly allowed a criminal petition filed by a person accused of rape and murder of his minor daughter, and commuted his death penalty to life imprisonment. The Court drew a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances to determine if the death penalty was adequate punishment. Aggravating circumstances:<\/span><\/span> (i) extremely brutal, diabolic and cruel act; (ii) victim being six years was a minor and helpless; (iii) no provocation because the accused was in a dominating position; (iv) injuries were grievous with respect to sexual assault particularly in a case where the victim was the daughter of the appellant. Mitigating circumstances:<\/span><\/span> (i) it was a case of circumstantial evidence; (ii) no evidence that the accused had the propensity of committing further crimes causing continuous threat to the society; (iii) no evidence to show that the accused could not be reformed or rehabilitated; (iv) other punishment options were open; (v) accused was not a professional killer or offender having any criminal antecedent; (vi) accused being a major having family with him, the possibility of reformation could not be ruled out.<\/p>\n

Read more…<\/a><\/p>\n

Andhra Pradesh High Court<\/b><\/p>\n

Did you know? During his tenure as the first Chief Justice of the newly formed Andhra Pradesh High Court, Justice Maheshwari too steps for the Establishment of Gram Nyayalayas at various stations in the State of Andhra Pradesh. He also disposed more than 4500 cases during the short span of 15 months4<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/span>. <\/p>\n

Taken UP<\/i> v. State of A.P.<\/i>, 2020 SCC OnLine AP 137<\/a><\/p>\n

A Division Bench of Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari, CJ and Lalitha Kanneganti, J., addressed certain PILs that were filed in regard to the LG Polymers poisonous gas leakage incident.<\/p>\n

Petition was filed seeking direction or any appropriate writ calling for records relating to leakage of poisonous gas from LG Polymers factory at Visakhapatnam and further directing respondents to save lives of people in around the factory by providing necessary medical facilities.<\/p>\n

Court passed the following interim directions:<\/p>\n