{"id":350816,"date":"2025-06-17T16:30:52","date_gmt":"2025-06-17T11:00:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=350816"},"modified":"2025-06-17T17:22:50","modified_gmt":"2025-06-17T11:52:50","slug":"know-your-judge-justice-pankaj-mithal-tryst-with-court-judiciary-supreme-court-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/17\/know-your-judge-justice-pankaj-mithal-tryst-with-court-judiciary-supreme-court-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Know Thy Judge | Supreme Court of India: Justice Pankaj Mithal\u2019s tryst with law and notable judgments"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Justice Pankaj Mithal, who was elevated to the Supreme Court in February 2023, began his tryst with law in the 1980s. After 2 decades of legal practice, Justice Mithal entered the next stage of his legal journey when he was appointed as a Judge in the Allahabad High Court, and then as Chief Justice of the High Courts of Jammu & Kashmir and Rajasthan.<\/p>\n

Early Life and Education of Justice Pankaj Mithal<\/p>\n

Justice Pankaj Mithal was born on 17-06-1961, in Meerut, in a family of lawyers. He received his early education at St. Mary’s Academy, Meerut and graduated in B. Com (Honours) in 1982 from the University of Allahabad. Later joined Meerut College Meerut and obtained his law degree from Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut in 19851<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

*Did you Know?<\/span> Justice Pankaj Mithal is a third-generation lawyer and a second-generation High Court Judge. His father, Justice Narendra Nath Mithal was also a Judge of the Allahabad High Court from 14-12-1978 to 07-04-19922<\/sup><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Justice Pankaj Mithal\u2019s Career as an Advocate3<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Post graduation Justice Mithal enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh in 1985 and started practicing under the guidance of Sudhir Chandra Verma who later adorned the bench of Allahabad High Court as a Judge and then became a Lokayukt (UP).<\/p>\n

Justice Mithal mainly practiced on the civil side and dealt with large number of cases of land acquisition, rent control, education, motor accident, labour and other miscellaneous matters including service and constitutional.<\/p>\n

He served as the Standing Counsel for the Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow and for Dr. B.R Ambedkar University, Agra.<\/p>\n

Did you Know?<\/span> During his days as an advocate, Justice Pankaj Mithal was well-known for his writing. His work \u2018The Birth and Life of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad<\/span>\u20194<\/sup><\/a>, tracing the history of Allahabad High Court, remains widely read even today.5<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Justice Pankaj Mithal\u2019s Career as a Judge<\/p>\n

Justice Pankaj Mithal was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 07-07-2006 and then elevated as Permanent Judge on 02-07-20086<\/sup><\/a>. He was also posted as Senior Judge of Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the year 20207<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

After serving Allahabad High Court as a Judge till 03-01-2021, Justice Mithal was elevated as Chief Justice of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on 04-01-20218<\/sup><\/a>. Justice Mithal was later transferred to Rajasthan High Court where on 14-10-2022 he took oath as Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court9<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Justice Pankaj Mithal\u2019s and 4 other Judges\u2019 elevation to the Supreme Court was recommended by the Collegium in December 2022<\/a>, consequent to which the Ministry of Law and Justice in a notification issued on 04-02-2023, notified the appointment of Justice Mithal to the Supreme Court<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Justice Pankaj Mithal was thus elevated to the Supreme Court on 06-02-2023 and is due to retire on 16-06-202610<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Other Responsibilities\/ Nominations11<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Governor of Uttar Pradesh, Anandiben Patel nominated Justice Mithal to the Executive Council of Ch. Charan Singh University, Meerut.<\/p>\n

Justice Mithal is also a trustee of Etawah Hindi Sewa Nidhi and the founder trustee of Justice Narendra Nath Mithal Memorial Foundation, which was established by his mother in memory of his late father.<\/p>\n

Notable Judgments by Justice Pankaj Mithal<\/p>\n

\u2018The very concept of family is being eroded\u2019; SC dismisses appeal seeking eldest son\u2019s eviction<\/p>\n

In Samtola Devi v. State of U.P.<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 669<\/a>, while considering the instant dispute wherein the filed an appeal seeking eviction of her son from the house; the Division Bench of Pankaj Mithal*<\/span> and SVN Bhatti, JJ., grimly remarked that though Indian society believes in \u201cVasudhaiva Kutumbakam<\/span>\u201d i.e. the earth, as a whole, is one family; however, today there is an inability to retain the unity in the immediate family. \u201cThe very concept of \u2018family\u2019 is being eroded and we are on the brink of one person one family\u201d<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Explained | Supreme Court\u2019s split verdict on AIMIM member Tahir Hussain\u2019s interim bail plea to contest Delhi Assembly Elections<\/p>\n

In Mohd. Tahir Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 135<\/a>, while deliberating over a petition filed by politician Tahir Hussain had sought interim bail for the purposes of contesting in upcoming Legislative Assembly Elections for NCT of Delhi; the Division Bench of Pankaj Mithal*<\/span> and Ahsanuddin Amanullah**<\/span>, JJ., delivered a split verdict in this regard.<\/p>\n

While Mithal, J., opined that interim bail is not permissible for the purposes of contesting elections<\/a>, much less for campaigning; Amanullah, J., on the other hand deemed the petitioner eligible to be enlarged on conditional bail for limited period. Furthermore, since a spilt decision was rendered in the instant case, the Division Bench therefore, directed the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate action.<\/p>\n

Post-surgery deterioration not automatically indicative of medical negligence; Supreme Court overturns NCDRC order<\/p>\n

In an appeal titled Neeraj Sud v. Jaswinder Singh<\/span>, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3069<\/a>, filed against the judgment passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (\u2018NCDRC\u2019), wherein it was held that the doctor was apparently negligent in not giving proper treatment and was also careless in not performing the repeat eye surgery, the division bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal*<\/span>, JJ. while setting aside the impugned judgment, held that simply for the reason that the patient has not responded favourably to the surgery or the treatment administered by a doctor or that the surgery has failed, the doctor cannot be held liable for medical negligence straightway by applying the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor<\/a> unless it is established by evidence that the doctor failed to exercise the due skill possessed by him in discharging of his duties.<\/p>\n

Arbitration and Conciliation Act | Appellate power of Section 37 is limited within the domain of Section 34: Supreme Court<\/p>\n

In Punjab State Civil Supplies Corpn. Ltd. v. Sanman Rice Mills<\/span>, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2632<\/a>, while considering a challenge to the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby which it had set aside an Arbitral Award granted in favour of the appellant; the Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal*<\/span>, JJ., held that the scope of the intervention of the Court in arbitral matters is virtually prohibited<\/a>, if not absolutely barred and that the interference is confined only to the extent envisaged under Section 34<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (A&C Act). The appellate power of Section 37 of the A&C Act is limited within the domain of Section 34 of the A&C Act.<\/p>\n

Refusal to marry does not amount to criminal liability for abetment of suicide: Supreme Court<\/p>\n

The Division Bench of Pankaj Mithal and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ., in Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi v. State of Karnataka<\/span>, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3541<\/a>, while considering a criminal appeal filed by the accused against the judgment and order of the Karnataka High Court, wherein the High Court convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 417<\/a> (Punishment for cheating) and 306<\/a> (Abetment of suicide) of the Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (IPC), setting aside the impugned conviction order, held that simply because the accused refused to marry the deceased did not equate to instigating, inciting, or provoking the deceased to take her own life<\/a>. Therefore, the refusal by the accused to marry her, under these circumstances, did not amount to criminal liability for abetment of suicide.<\/p>\n

Accuracy of averment made in written statement must be decided by Trial Court on conclusion of evidence at time of suit\u2019s final determination: SC<\/p>\n

In Ramchandra v. State of Rajasthan<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 685<\/a>, concerning Rajasthan High Court\u2019s refusal to quash FIR; the Division Bench of Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti, JJ., held that whether a statement made in the written statement is incorrect or false<\/a> must be considered and decided by the Trial Court itself upon the conclusion of the evidence, at the time of the final determination of the suit or if necessary in proceedings under Section 340 of the CrPC. Unless this exercise is completed, it is difficult to say that the averments made therein are false and constitutes an offence attracting penal action.<\/p>\n

Discharge order based on defence material held impermissible by SC in Rs. 21 Crore MSP fraud case involving Cotton Corporation of India officer<\/p>\n

In State v. Eluri Srinivasa Chakravarthi<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1215<\/a>, the Division Bench of Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ., delineated the contours of a magistrate\u2019s discretion<\/a> under Section 239 of the CrPC, and set aside concurrent findings of discharge by the Special Court and High Court, reiterated that reliance on material produced by the accused at the stage of discharge is impermissible in law. The Court emphasised that the threshold under Section 239 must be assessed solely on the basis of the police report and accompanying documents filed under Section 173 CrPC.<\/p>\n

No automatic vacation of stay order in six months: SC Constitution Bench overturns Asian Resurfacing judgment<\/p>\n

The Constitution Bench comprising of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI along with Abhay S. Oka*<\/span>, JB Pardiwala, Pankaj Mithal**<\/span> and Manoj Misra, JJ., in High Court Bar Assn. v. State of U.P.<\/span>, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 207<\/a>, reversed its own 2018 ruling of a 3-Judge Bench and held that Constitutional Courts should not fix a timeline for disposal of cases pending in any court<\/a> while exercising powers under Article 142. The Court further justified the stance that pattern of cases pending in various courts including High Courts is different.<\/p>\n

The three-Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd. v. CBI, (2018) 16 SCC 299<\/a> had held that interim orders passed by High Courts for stay on trials in civil and criminal matters would expire automatically after 6 months, unless the same was expressly extended by the High Court. The same was reversed in the instant decision. Justice Abhay S. Oka wrote the majority judgment, which was concurred by Justice Pankaj Mithal through a separate judgment.<\/p>\n

Inside Supreme Court verdict on easementary rights and powers of Appellate Court<\/p>\n

In Manisha Mahendra Gala v. Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani<\/span>, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 530<\/a>, concerning easementary rights over a road situated over land<\/a>, which is presently owned by the respondents, the division bench of Pankaj Mithal*<\/span> and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. held that the appellants have not acquired easementary right over the disputed \u2018rasta\u2019 in any manner much less by prescription, necessity or under an agreement. Therefore, the Appellate Courts and the High Court have not committed any error of law in dismissing suit appellants and in decreeing suit of respondents.<\/p>\n

Enrollment in Army based on Fake relationship certificate with servicemen\/ex-servicemen: SC orders reinstatement of army personnels with consequential benefits<\/p>\n

While hearing Babanna Machched v. Union of India<\/span>, (2024) 5 SCC 306<\/a>, under Section 31<\/a> of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007<\/a> against the Armed Forces Tribunal\u2019s order, whereby the Appellants were dismissed from their service for adopting fraudulent means by producing false relationship certificate for recruitment<\/a> under the Unit Headquarters Quota, the Division Bench of Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal*<\/span>, JJ. allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned orders.<\/p>\n

In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescent | SC frowns upon Calcutta HC\u2019s advise to girls to control sexual urge; \u2018Judges to avoid expression of Personal views\u2019<\/p>\n

In a suo motu cognizance of the Calcutta High Court\u2019s decision, whereby the High Court issued a slew of advisories to the male and female adolescents regarding the respect of a woman, protection of self-worth, dignity and privacy, and right to autonomy of the female\u2019s body, the Division Bench of Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ., In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescent<\/span>, frowned upon the High Court\u2019s suggestion<\/a> to adolescent girls to control their sexual urge.<\/p>\n

HC Judges taking up case not assigned by the Chief Justice an act of gross impropriety: Supreme Court<\/p>\n

A \u201cshocking case of gross abuse of process of law\u201d wherein, the respondents\u2019 failure to get interim relief for quashment of First Information Reports (\u2018FIRs\u2019) and proceeding with filing of civil writ petition prompted the Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Pankaj Mithal, JJ., in Ambalal Parihar v. State of Rajasthan<\/span>, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1374<\/a>, to slam the respondents with costs and reprimand the Judge<\/a> concerned for not converting the writ petition to criminal writ petition for roster Judge taking up criminal writ petitions.<\/p>\n

Can Arbitration proceedings be terminated on claimant\u2019s failure to request Arbitral Tribunal to fix a date for hearing?<\/p>\n

In Dani Wooltex Corpn. v. Sheil Properties (P) Ltd.<\/span>, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 970<\/a>, concerning the issue about the legality and validity of the order of termination of the arbitral proceedings<\/a> under Section 32(2)(c)<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (\u2018the Arbitration Act\u2019) passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, the division bench of Abhay S. Oka*<\/span> and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. held the following:<\/p>\n