Dipak Misra | |
---|---|
45th Chief Justice of India | |
In office 28 August 2017 –2 October 2018 | |
Appointed by | Ram Nath Kovind |
Preceded by | Jagdish Singh Khehar |
Succeeded by | Ranjan Gogoi |
Judge of the Supreme Court of India | |
In office 10 October 2011 –28 August 2017 | |
Appointed by | Pratibha Patil |
Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court | |
In office 24 May 2010 –10 October 2014 | |
Appointed by | Shankar Dayal Sharma |
Preceded by | Ajit Prakash Shah |
Succeeded by | D. Murugesan |
Chief Justice of the Patna High Court | |
In office 1 December 2009 –23 May 2010 | |
Appointed by | Pratibha Patil |
Preceded by | Prafulla Kumar Mishra |
Succeeded by | Rekha Manharlal Doshit |
Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court | |
In office 3 March 1997 –30 November 2009 | |
Appointed by | Shankar Dayal Sharma |
Judge of the Orissa High Court | |
In office 17 January 1996 –2 March 1997 | |
Appointed by | Shankar Dayal Sharma |
Personal details | |
Born | 3 October 1953 |
Relatives | Ranganath Misra (uncle) [1] |
Alma mater | Madhusudan Law College,Cuttack |
Dipak Misra (born 3 October 1953) is an Indian jurist who served as the 45th Chief Justice of India from 28 August 2017 till 2 October 2018. [2] [3] [4] He is also former Chief Justice of the Patna High Court and Delhi High Court. He is the nephew of Justice Ranganath Misra,who was the 21st Chief Justice from 1990 to 1991. [1] [5]
Misra enrolled at the Bar on 14 February 1977 and practised at the Orissa High Court and the Service Tribunal. He was first appointed an Additional Judge of the Orissa High Court in 1996. The following year,he was transferred to the Madhya Pradesh High Court,where he was made a Permanent Judge on 19 December 1997. In December 2009,he was appointed Chief Justice of the Patna High Court,serving until May 2010,when he was appointed Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court. He was elevated to the Supreme Court on 10 October 2011. [2] [6]
Misra had a tenure of thirteen months as chief justice at the Supreme Court after being appointed the 45th Chief Justice of India on 28 August 2017 until mandatory retirement at 65 years of age,on 2 October 2018 and was succeeded by Ranjan Gogoi. [6] [7] [8]
Misra's judgment in the Own Motion vs State case,requiring Delhi Police to upload First Information Reports (FIR) on their website within 24 hours of the FIRs being lodged. This enables the accused to file appropriate applications before the court for redressal of their grievances. [9]
In a case on Reservation in promotion,Justice Misra and Justice Dalveer Bhandari upheld the Allahabad High Court judgement that reservation in promotions can be provided only if there is sufficient data and evidence to justify the need. The bench rejected the Uttar Pradesh government's decision to provide reservation in promotion on the ground that it failed to furnish sufficient valid data. [10] [11] [12]
In an unprecedented overnight hearing at 3:20 am IST on 30 July 2015,a 3 judge bench comprising Dipak Misra,Prafulla Chandra Pant and Amitava Roy rejected 1993 Mumbai serial blasts convict Yakub Memon's appeal to stop his execution which resulted in his hanging at the Nagpur Central Jail a few hours later.
Memon's lawyers made a last-minute effort to save him from the noose by rushing to the residence of Chief Justice H. L. Dattu to petition for an urgent hearing,after Memon's mercy pleas were rejected by Governor of Maharashtra C. Vidyasagar Rao and then by President Pranab Mukherjee. However,the Supreme Court dismissed the case and the three-judge bench refused to stay the execution,stating that Memon had been provided with sufficient opportunities before the court and the executive. The bench further stated,"if we have to stay the death warrant it would be a travesty of justice",adding that "we do not find any merit in the writ petition". [13] [14] [15]
A three judge bench led by Justice Misra has upheld the death sentence awarded to the four convicts of the Nirbhaya rape case on 5 May 2017. [16] Justice Misra authored the landmark judgement confirming the death penalty of four convicts in the brutal 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder case which shook the nation and spurred the genesis of a stringent anti-rape law. In his verdict,Justice Misra termed the convicts as those who “found an object for enjoyment in her... for their gross,sadistic and beastly pleasures... for the devilish manner in which they played with her dignity and identity is humanly inconceivable”. [17]
It was a bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice Misra that settled the 120 year old dispute over the Cauvery river,also called the Ganga of the South and considered to be the lifeline for Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. The judgment laid down important principles to the effect that rivers are a national resource and not the property of any State and the sharing of waters must be on equitable basis and further placed the requirement of drinking water at the highest pedestal. [18]
The first progress in the Ayodhya dispute occurred during Justice Misra’s tenure when the Bench led by him restricted the dispute only to the title suit and rejected third party interventions. The Bench led by him rejected the plea to refer the ''Ismail Faruqui'' judgment to a Constitution Bench thereby upholding that a mosque was not integral to the Muslim way of worship,which has an important bearing on the dispute. [19]
In a historic unanimous ruling on Section 377 IPC,while presiding over a Constitution Bench,Chief Justice Misra partially struck down Section 377 of IPC citing it to be irrational,indefensible and manifestly arbitrary. Justice Misra observed quoting Goethe :“I am what I am,so take me as I am”and emphasised on the universal concepts of individuality,liberty and dignity of the individual,right to privacy,equality of rights and freedom of expression,and highlighted the constitutional principles of transformative constitutionalism and constitutional morality and the doctrines of progressive realisation and non-retrogression of rights.[ citation needed ]
In Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India,a two judge bench of the Supreme Court of India,which included Misra and Justice Prafulla C Pant,has upheld that defamation is a criminal offence. Many have seen the verdict as a blow to freedom of speech and expression in India. Herein,the bench concluded that the Right to Reputation is included under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court also referred to Dr. B. R. Ambedkar's speech to highlight the intention of the drafters to include reasonable restrictions on free speech and expression under Article 19(2),without defining words such as "defamation" and clearly left it for the wisdom of the courts to interpret and apply their meaning.
To determine the constitutionality of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code and its exceptions,the bench examined each provision in detail and concluded that the section is not vague. The bench rejected the petitioner's argument about "public good",stating that such interpretation must be made on a case-by-case basis. Ultimately,the court found Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 199 of the CrPC constitutional,asserting that the judiciary is independent of political influence and responsible for preventing the misuse of the judicial process. [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]
While upholding the marriage of Kerala Muslim convert girl Hadiya with Shafin Jahan in the Hadiya court case,he observed that the right to marry a person of one's choice is integral to right to life and liberty and further,choosing a faith is the substratum of individuality and sans it,the right of choice becomes a shadow.[ citation needed ]
In Shakti Vahini v. Union of India,deprecating honour killing and honour crimes,Justice Misra wrote that honour killing guillotines individual liberty and freedom of choice and that assertion of choice is an insegregable facet of liberty and dignity. He further wrote:“any kind of torture or torment or ill-treatment in the name of honour that tantamount to atrophy of choice of an individual relating to love and marriage by an assembly,whatsoever nomenclature it assumes,is illegal and cannot be allowed a moment of existence”. He also observed,“class honour,howsoever perceived,cannot smother the choice of an individual which he or she is entitled to enjoy under our compassionate Constitution.” [29]
Justice Misra,in his judgment on mob vigilantism and lynching,condemned the horrendous acts of mobocracy and observed that it cannot be allowed to become the “new normal”. He stated that it has to be curbed with an iron hand and that no citizen can be allowed to take the law into his own hands or become law unto himself and further issued a slew of directions,including preventive,punitive and remedial measures,to deal with the crime. [30]
He had upheld the constitutionality of the criminal defamation as a reasonable restriction on free speech under Article 19 (2) of the Constitution stating that reputation cannot be allowed to be sullied on the anvil of free speech which is not absolute.[ citation needed ]
He was also part of the Bench of the Supreme Court's seven senior-most judges who convicted then Calcutta High Court judge C. S. Karnan of contempt of court and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment. [31]
He was part of the bench that ordered playing of the National Anthem in the beginning of a film in theatres as mandatory,which requires the audience to stand up when it is played. [32] Later,he modified the order to clarify with regard to differently abled people and further relaxed it while stating that if a cinema chose to play the National Anthem,people would have to stand up as a mark of honour and respect.
He was part of the bench that ruled out Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code dealing with adultery. [33] On 27 September 2018,Misra read the judgment that adultery will no longer be a criminal offence,but can serve as a reason for other civil issues,such as divorce. [34]
He is hailed as a 'warrior of gender equality' as he led various constitutional benches which passed historic judgements that upheld equal rights for women and the LGBT community,like the scrapping of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code,legalising homosexuality by partially striking down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and allowing entry for women of menstruating age group into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. [35]
On 12 January 2018, four senior judges of the Supreme Court; Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan Lokur and Kurian Joseph addressed a press conference criticising Misra's style of administration and allocation of cases. However, people close to Misra refuted these allegations. [36] [37] [38] Legal experts like Soli Sorabjee and Ujjwal Nikam said that this rebellion of the four judges against the Chief Justice of India is going to hurt the judiciary by eroding public faith in it. [39]
On 20 April 2018, seven opposition parties submitted a petition seeking impeachment of Misra to the Vice-President Venkaiah Naidu, with signatures from seventy-one parliamentarians. [40] On 23 April 2018, the petition was rejected by Venkaiah Naidu, primarily on the basis that the complaints were about the internal administration and not misbehaviour, and that impeachment would seriously interfere with the constitutionally protected independence of the judiciary. [41] [42] [43]
The Supreme Court of India is the supreme judicial authority and the highest court of the Republic of India. It is the final court of appeal for all civil and criminal cases in India. It also has the power of judicial review. The Supreme Court, which consists of the Chief Justice of India and a maximum of fellow 33 judges, has extensive powers in the form of original, appellate and advisory jurisdictions.
Section 377 is a British colonial penal code that criminalized all sexual acts "against the order of nature". The law was used to prosecute people engaging in oral and anal sex along with homosexual activity. As per a Supreme Court Judgement since 2018, the Indian Penal Code Section 377 is used to convict non-consensual sexual activities among homosexuals with a minimum of ten years’ imprisonment extended to life imprisonment. It has been used to criminalize third gender people, such as the apwint in Myanmar. In 2018, then British Prime Minister Theresa May acknowledged how the legacies of such British colonial anti-sodomy laws continue to persist today in the form of discrimination, violence, and even death.
Konakuppakatil Gopinathan Balakrishnan is an Indian judge who served as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India and later the chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission of India. He was the first judge from Kerala to become the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. His tenure lasting more than three years has been one of the longest in the Supreme Court of India. While being Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court, he was appointed the acting governor of Gujarat from 16 January 1999 to 18 March 1999. In 2010, he was conferred with an honorary doctorate by Cochin University of Science and Technology.
Ranganath Misra was the 21st Chief Justice of India, serving from 25 September 1990 to 24 November 1991. He was also the first chairman of the National Human Rights Commission of India. He also served as Member of Parliament in Rajya Sabha from the Congress Party between 1998 and 2004. He is the second Supreme court judge to become a Rajya Sabha member after Baharul Islam who was also elected as Indian National Congress member.
Sarosh Homi Kapadia was the 38th Chief Justice of India. He was the first chief justice born after the partition of India.
Jasti Chelameswar is a former judge of the Supreme Court of India. He retired on 22 June 2018 as the second most senior supreme court judge. He previously served as the chief justice of the Kerala High Court from 2010 to 2011 and the Gauhati High Court from 2007 to 2010. He was also one of the four judges who held a controversial press conference against Chief Justice Dipak Misra.
Jagdish Singh Khehar is a former senior advocate and a former judge, who served as the 44th Chief Justice of India in 2017. Khehar is the first chief justice from the Sikh community. He has been a judge in Supreme Court of India from 13 September 2011 to 27 August 2017 upon superannuation. He served for a brief period but gave many landmark judgements such as the Triple Talaq and the Right to Privacy verdict. He was succeeded by Justice Dipak Misra.
Ranjan Gogoi is an Indian former advocate and judge who served as the 46th Chief Justice of India from 2018 to 2019, having previously served as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India from 2012 to 2018. He is currently a Member of the Rajya Sabha, having been nominated by President Ram Nath Kovind on 16 March 2020. Gogoi served as a judge in the Gauhati High Court from 2001 to 2010, and then was transferred as a judge to the Punjab and Haryana High Court from 2010 to 2011 where he later was the Chief Justice from 2011 to 2012. He is also a member of the Committee on External Affairs in the Rajya Sabha.
Amitava Roy is the retired judge of the Supreme Court of India and former Chief Justice of the Odisha High Court and Rajasthan High Court. He is also a puisne judge of the Gauhati High Court.
Kuttiyil Mathew Joseph is a former judge of the Supreme Court of India; he retired on 16 June 2023. He is former chief justice of the Uttarakhand High Court. Before his appointment as chief justice of the High Court of Uttarakhand on 31 July 2014, he had served as a judge of the Kerala High Court for more than nine years.
Sidharth Luthra is a senior advocate at the Supreme Court of India. In July 2012, Sidharth Luthra was appointed as the Additional Solicitor General of India at the Supreme Court and represented the union and various state governments in matters relating to fundamental rights, electoral reforms, criminal law and policy issues. He resigned from this position in May 2014. He is the son of K.K. Luthra who was also a senior advocate and brother of senior advocate Geeta Luthra.
Palanisamy Sathasivam is an Indian judge who served as the 40th Chief Justice of India, holding the office from 2013 to 2014. On retirement from his judicial career, Sathasivam was appointed the 21st Governor of Kerala from 5 September 2014 to 4 September 2019. Sathasivam is the second judge from Tamil Nadu to become the CJI, after M. Patanjali Sastri. He is also the first former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to be appointed the Governor of a state. He is the first Governor of Kerala to be appointed by the Narendra Modi Government.
Sharad Arvind Bobde is an Indian judge who served as the 47th Chief Justice of India from 18 November 2019 to 23 April 2021.
Prafulla Chandra Pant is an Indian judge and author who served as a judge of the Supreme Court of India from 2014 to 2017. He later served as a member of the National Human Rights Commission of India from 2019 to 2021, and briefly acted as its chairperson. Prior to his appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court of India, he had previously served as chief justice of the Meghalaya High Court at Shillong and as a judge of the Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital.
Uday Umesh Lalit is an Indian lawyer and former Supreme Court Judge, who served as the 49th Chief Justice of India. Previously, he has served as a judge of Supreme Court of India. Prior to his elevation as a judge, he practised as a senior counsel at the Supreme Court. Justice Lalit is one of the eleven senior counsels who have been directly elevated to the Supreme Court. He is currently ‘Distinguished Visiting Professor’ at Ashank Desai Centre for Policy Studies, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay and Distinguished Visiting Professor at West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences.
Brijgopal Harkishan Loya was an Indian judge who served in a special court which deals with matters relating to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). He was presiding over the Sohrabuddin Sheikh case, and died on 1 December 2014 in Nagpur. A bench of the Supreme Court of India, headed by the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, on April 19, 2018, dismissed the public interest petition (PIL), and stated the death to be natural and such petitions to be an attack on the Judiciary.
The Supreme Court of India was in crisis after a press conference was given by Supreme Court judges Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan Lokur, and Kurian Joseph, in which they spoke against the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra that he allocated certain politically controversial cases to such benches which give favourable judgements towards a political party.
Narayan Shukla (born 18 July 1958) also known as SN Shukla was an Allahabad High Court Judge. The Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra has written to the President of India recommending his removal for his alleged involvement in the medical college admission scam.
Navtej Singh Johar &Ors. v. Union of India thr. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice (2018) is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that decriminalised all consensual sex among adults, including homosexual sex.
Ujjawal &Anr. versus State of Haryana&Ors.(2021), a case where Punjab and Haryana High Court, refused to provide police protection to a couple facing threat to their lives and personal liberty, citing potential disruption to "social fabric of the society."
I think all four judges should be impeached. They have no business to sit there and deliver verdicts anymore. This trade unionism is wrong. Democracy in danger is not for them to say. We have parliament, courts, police functioning.