Born on September 3,1955,in Gwalior,inherited a legal legacy from his father,the late Hargovind Mishra,a former judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Justice Mishra pursued a diverse educational path,completing his graduation in science followed by a law degree and a master’s degree simultaneously. He practiced from 1978 to October 1999 in constitutional,civil,industrial,criminal and service matters in the bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior. He worked as a part-time lecturer in law from 1986 to 1993 and was a member of the faculty of law of Jiwaji University,Gwalior from 1991 to 1996.
Elevation to High Court
Mishra was appointed additional judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on 25 October 1999 and permanent judge on 24 October 2001. He was transferred to Rajasthan High Court,Jodhpur and took oath on 12 September 2010. He became acting chief justice of Rajasthan High Court on 1 November 2010. He took oath of the office of the Chief Justice of Rajasthan on 26 November 2010.[citation needed]
Achievements
Mishra has taken several steps to dovetail technology in functions of Rajasthan High Court. His initiatives include publication of first ever Newsletter of Rajasthan High Court and inauguration of a Museum. [3]
Calcutta High Court
He was appointed the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court on 14 December 2012 and served until 2014 and was later elevated as a judge of the Supreme Court.[4]
Chairperson of NHRC
On 2 June 2021,he was appointed the chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission of India and served there till 1 June 2024.[5][6] His appointment was criticized by opposition leader Mallikarjun Kharge who requested to appoint a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe communities arguing that most complaints lodged with NHRC deal with atrocities committed against these communities.[7][8]
As to Anticipatory Bail,held Right to Liberty is valuable,should not be interfered with lightly. Once pre-arrest bail is granted,should not be for a limited period.[9]
Rendered a land-mark judgment overruling earlier decisions with respect to land acquisition in view of 2013 Act. This saved the land acquisitions made decades before from lapsing under the new Act.[10]
Held an accused is not entitled to acquittal merely on technical ground because informant was an investigation officer for an offence under NDPS Act. However,cautioned that the evidence has to be scrutinized stringently in such cases.[11]
It was opined that the State,has power to make reservation for in-service doctors for post graduate courses to increase efficiency of service.[12]
SARFAESI Act was held applicable to co-operative Banks as it does to commercial banks. Earlier decision to the contrary was overruled.[13]
The earlier Five Judge bench decision on the issue of reservation within a reserved class of SC/ST was dissented to for various reasons and the issue was referred to a bench of 7 Judges,holding that to trickle down benefit it is as permissible to provide for the reservation within a reserved class as that class is not homogeneous class.7 In Reference,the opinion was recently accepted by a 7 judge bench and the earlier decision was overruled.[14]
In Land Acquisition matter by constitution bench,dealt with the law on recusal of a judge,held,a judge can be part of a larger bench even if he has expressed his opinion on a legal issue in a smaller bench.[15]
Notable 3 Judge and Division Bench Judgments on various questions of law
Rights conferred on religious and linguistic minorities to administer educational institutions under Article 30 - held that the state can impose reasonable restrictions. The holding of National level entrance exam in MBBS was upheld. Putting national interest above religious and linguistic minority community’s right to administer educational institutions,ruled that single window National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) would be mandatory for admissions to medical and dental courses offered by private unaided minority medical/dental colleges.[16]
Dealt with Section 6 of the Hindu succession Act and in a landmark judgment held that a daughter has an equal right in coparcenary property even if she was born before the 2005 amendment.[17][18]
Judicial officers can’t be appointed as District Judges as against direct recruitment quota reserved for practicing advocates.[19]
Decision imposing various restrictions for registration of FIR and arrest of accused for offences under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were set aside holding that different yard stick cannot be applied because the complainant belongs to down trodden class of SC/ST.[20]
In case concerning violation of coastal zone regulation which prohibited raising of structures,a high-rise building at Maradu,Kerala was directed to be demolished for lack of clearance,and ordered buyers to be compensated by the builders.[21]
Dealt with Green Bench in Supreme Court - M.C. Mehta,with respect to environment and control of Pollution issued various directions for Delhi and various parts of country,in particular in Delhi-NCR region. Relied upon various principles embodied in the chapters of Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties in the Constitution. Directions were issued keeping in view scientific knowledge and expert opinion. These included directions qua stubble burning,demolition and construction activities,road dust (installation of water sprinklers),waste and garbage disposal and re-cycling,halting of non-conforming polluting industries,etc. Concrete action plans were called for. Responsibility and accountability of different stakeholders and agencies were fixed.[22][23]
Dealing with preservation of the environment - Invoking the public trust doctrine,quashed the environmental clearance granted to housing project within the catchment area of the Sukhna lake to Members of Legislative assembly of Punjab.[24][25]
Controversies
In February 2020,the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) condemned Justice Mishra's statements to praise Prime Minister Narendra Modi.[26] On 22 February 2020,at the inaugural ceremony of the International Judicial Conference,Mishra said,"India is a responsible and most friendly member of the international community under the stewardship of the internationally acclaimed visionary Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi." He described Modi as "a versatile genius who thinks globally and acts locally".[27]
In response on 26 February 2020,SCBA condemned Mishra's sycophantic remarks for Modi and in a resolution it said such statements reflect poorly on the independence of judiciary which is a basic feature of the Constitution of India. The resolution asserted that if judges show their proximity to politicians,it will influence their judgments in the courts.[28]
On 31 August 2020,a former minister in the Government of India Yashwant Sinha ridiculed Mishra’s slavish behaviour toward Modi. He suggested in a contemptuous tenor that after Mishra’s retirement,Modi should reward him with a job that is more than a Rajya Sabha seat.[29] In October 2021,Sinha criticized Mishra again for his sycophancy for Modi's colleague Amit Shah who is the Home Minister of India.[30]
In an article titled "The Shadow of Haren Pandya's Case Lies Long Over Justice Arun Mishra" published on 30 August 2020,The Wire news site critically analyzed Mishra's judgments.[31]
In an article on 23 April 2020,The Hindu newspaper suggested enacting a law to stop appointments of retired judges by the government in order to restore confidence in the judiciary.[32]
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
