{"id":378156,"date":"2026-03-12T12:30:27","date_gmt":"2026-03-12T07:00:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=378156"},"modified":"2026-03-24T13:11:47","modified_gmt":"2026-03-24T07:41:47","slug":"know-thy-judge-justice-augustine-george-masih-supreme-court-judges","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/12\/know-thy-judge-justice-augustine-george-masih-supreme-court-judges\/","title":{"rendered":"Know Thy Judge | Supreme Court of India: Justice Augustine George Masih\u2019s Dedicated Journey and Key Decisions"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

With roots across Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh, Justice Augustine George Masih brings a rich academic and professional foundation to the judiciary. His steady rise from advocate to High Court Judge and Chief Justice, and eventually Supreme Court Judge reflects his legal acumen, administrative strength, and dedication to diversity within the institution.<\/p>\n

Justice Augustine George Masih’s Early Life<\/h2>\n

Born on 12 March 1963 in Ropar, Punjab, Justice Augustine George Masih completed his schooling from St. Mary’s Convent School, Kasauli, Himachal Pradesh and Saifuddin Tahir High School, Aligarh Uttar Pradesh.1<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

He completed his graduation in Science (Hons.) followed by LL.B.(Hons.) from Aligarh Muslim University, Uttar Pradesh.2<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Career Trajectory of Justice Augustine George Masih<\/h2>\n

Justice Augustine was enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana on 6 June 1987. Justice Augustine holds practical experience in Constitutional Law, Service Law, Labour Law, Civil Law, etc. on both Original and Appellate sides. He has appeared as an advocate before the Supreme Court, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Delhi High Court, Himachal Pradesh High Court, and various other Courts and Tribunals.3<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Justice Augustine has also held the posts of Assistant Advocate General, Deputy Advocate General, Additional Advocate General in the office of Advocate General, Punjab.<\/p>\n

Justice A.G. Masih’s years as an advocate allowed him to acquire a profound understanding of the legal system and the intricacies of a wide range of legal matters which eventually paved the way for his appointment as the Additional Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court on 10 July 2008, followed by Permanent Judgeship on 14 January 2011.4<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Did you know?<\/span> Justice Masih ranks No. 7 in All-India High Court judge seniority and No. 1 among judges from the Punjab & Haryana High Court?5<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Justice Augustine George Masih was elevated as the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court on 30 May 2023. It was a defining moment in his career as it marked a pivotal juncture in his judicial career. He took on a position of profound responsibility and leadership in the realm of the law.6<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Justice Masih was recommended to the Supreme Court by the Collegium led by former CJI Dr D.Y. Chandrachud.7<\/sup><\/a> Thereafter, he took oath as Judge of the Supreme Court of India on 9 November 2023. The Supreme Court Collegium while considering Justice Masih’s name for elevation as Supreme Court Judge, took note of his expertise in diverse fields of law, and that his inclusion to the Bench would strengthen the representation of minority communities in the Supreme Court of India. The Collegium, thus, recommended Justice Augustine George Masih’s name on 6 November 2023, and he took oath as the Judge of the Supreme Court of India on 9 November 2023.8<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Did you know?<\/span> While recommending Justice Masih for Supreme Court judgeship, the Collegium observed that his appointment willstrengthen Supreme Court’s commitment to diversity and inclusive representation.<\/span>9<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Notable Decisions by Justice Augustine George Masih<\/h2>\n

In Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Yati Jain<\/span><\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 80<\/a><\/span> batch of civil appeals raised an important question concerning the nature, scope and legal enforceability of a waiting\/reserve list prepared in public recruitment. In the appeals filed by the Rajasthan Public Service challenging the judgments of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court affirming the orders of the Single Judges directing the appointment or consideration of wait-listed candidates against vacancies arising on account of non-joining of selected candidates, a Division Bench of Dipankar Datta* and Augustine George Masih, JJ., allowed all three appeals and set aside the impugned judgments of the Division Bench and the Single Judges. The Court held that the RPSC had locus standi to maintain the writ appeals<\/a>. A Wait-listed candidate has no vested right or indefeasible right of appointment. The six-month statutory validity period cannot be computed from the date of non-joining or cancellation of appointment beyond the prescribed period. In absence of requisition, no mandamus could be issued to recommend candidates from the reserve list.<\/p>\n

While hearing a pending civil appeal in Gohar Sultan v. Sheikh Anis Ahmad<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 246<\/span>,<\/a><\/span> the Court’s attention was drawn to the provisions of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937<\/a>, particularly Section 4 and the absence of compliance with the said provision. A Division Bench of Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih, JJ., impleaded the Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Legislation, and the State of Uttar Pradesh through its Chief Secretary as party respondents and issued notice, so that the appropriate governmental authorities before it could clarify the position regarding compliance. The Court directed the newly added respondents<\/a> to file an affidavit indicating the latest status in the meantime. The Court requested the parties to file a convenience compilation within one week.<\/p>\n

While considering the application in CBI v. Kuldeep Singh Sengar<\/span><\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2998<\/span>, <\/a><\/span>filed by Central Bureau of Investigation against Delhi High Court’s decision dated 23-12-2025 (impugned order), wherein it had suspended the sentence of Unnao Rape Case convict Kuldeep Sengar and directing conditional release; the 3-Judge Bench of Surya Kant, CJI., J.K. Maheshwari and Augustine George Masih, JJ., stayed the operation of the impugned order, thereby holding that the convict shall not be released<\/a> from custody pursuant to the impugned order.<\/p>\n

In XXX<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span><\/span><\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1646<\/a>, a petition filed by a sitting Judge of Allahabad High Court seeking declaration of Paragraphs 5(b) and 7 of In-House Procedure dated 15-12-1999 to the extent that it enables the In-House Committee to inquire and comment on the existence of ‘serious misconduct warranting removal’ and the CJI to intimate the same to the President and the Prime Minister for initiating proceedings for removal and other consequential action, as unconstitutional and ultra vires; and set aside the Final Report dated 03-05-2025 submitted by the Committee, and all consequential actions taken pursuant to the same. The Division Bench of Dipankar Datta* and A.G. Masih, JJ., dismissed the writ petition and opined that if indeed any fault were found in the Procedure and questions were to be raised, the Petitioner ought not to have waited for completion of the fact-finding inquiry set in motion<\/a> by the CJI. The Court further held that the in-house inquiry or its report forming part of the Procedure in itself does not lead to removal of a Judge, unlike the constitutionally ordained procedure. Thus, the in-house inquiry is not a removal mechanism in the first place, much less an extra-constitutional mechanism.<\/p>\n

In U.P. SRTC<\/span> v. Kashmiri Lal Batra<\/span><\/span><\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2335<\/a>, a civil appeal filed against the judgment and order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court , as well as in a writ petition filed under Article 32<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> seeking enforcement of the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g)<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>, the Court was concerned with the grant of permits on certain inter-State routes that overlapped portions of certain intra-State notified routes. Accordingly, Chapter V of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988<\/a>, titled Control of Transport Vehicles, and Chapter VI, titled Special Provisions Relating to State Transport Undertakings, along with the relevant forms, constituted the focal point of the Court’s consideration. The Division Bench of Dipankar Datta* and A.G. Masih, JJ. emphasised that, given India’s substantial progress in the road transport sector, the interests of passengers and commuters must remain of paramount concern for transport authorities<\/a>, in this case, for both the States of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. Consequently, the Court held that no permission could be granted at this stage to any private operator holding a permit issued by the State Transport Authority (STA), MP, to operate a stage carriage on an inter-State route overlapping a notified intra-State route in Uttar Pradesh.<\/p>\n

In Hansraj<\/span> v. State of U.P.<\/span><\/span><\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2193<\/a>, while considering the writ petition filed by a murder convict<\/a> who was in custody from 3 years, and thus sought release from prison after raising the plea of juvenility; the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta*<\/span> and A.G, Masih, JJ., had to consider whether the petitioner (convict) is entitled to the benefit of the<\/span> Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000<\/a>, as amended in 2006 whereby Section 7-A was inserted.<\/p>\n

A five-judge Bench comprising Sanjiv Khanna*, CJI., B.R. Gavai, Sanjay Kumar, Augustine George Masih, and K.V. Viswanathan**, JJ., with a ratio of 4:1, in Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd.<\/span><\/span>, (2025) 7 SCC 1<\/a><\/span>, held that the Appellate Courts may exercise limited powers to modify arbitral awards under certain specific circumstances<\/a>:<\/p>\n