Jagdish Singh Khehar | |
---|---|
44th Chief Justice of India | |
In office 4 January 2017 –27 August 2017 | |
Appointed by | Pranab Mukherjee |
Preceded by | T. S. Thakur |
Succeeded by | Dipak Misra |
Judge of the Supreme Court of India | |
In office 13 September 2011 –3 January 2017 | |
Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court | |
In office 8 August 2010 –12 September 2011 | |
Preceded by | P. D. Dinakaran |
Succeeded by | Vikramajit Sen |
7th Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court | |
In office 29 November 2009 –7 August 2010 | |
Preceded by | Tarun Agarwala (acting) |
Succeeded by | Barin Ghosh |
Personal details | |
Born | Nairobi,British Kenya,now Nairobi,Kenya [1] | 28 August 1952
Nationality | Indian (1965-present);Kenyan (1963-1965);British (1952-1963) |
Alma mater | Panjab University,Chandigarh |
Occupation | Judge |
Religion | Sikhism |
Source: [2] | |
Jagdish Singh Khehar (born 28 August 1952) is an Indian jurist,who served as the 44th Chief Justice of India from 4 January 2017 to 27 August 2017 [2] [3] He was the first Sikh Chief Justice of India. [4] [5] He has been a judge in Supreme Court of India from 13 September 2011 to 27 August 2017 upon superannuation. [6] 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.
This section of a biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification .(July 2021) |
Khehar led the five-judge Constitution Bench in Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India [2016(5) SCC 1]. By enabling the collegium system to continue, Khehar, quashed the NJAC Act and also declared 99th Amendment to the Constitution unconstitutional. The majority concluded this judgment:
While adjudicating upon the merits of the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the rival parties, I have arrived at the conclusion, that clauses (a) and (b) of Article 124A(1) do not provide an adequate representation, to the judicial component in the NJAC, clauses (a) and (b) of Article 124A(1) are insufficient to preserve the primacy of the judiciary, in the matter of selection and appointment of Judges, to the higher judiciary (as also transfer of Chief Justices and Judges, from one High Court to another). The same are accordingly, violative of the principle of "independence of the judiciary." Khehar further explained:
that clause (c) of Article 124 A (1) is ultra-vires the provisions of the Constitution, because of the inclusion of the Union Minister in charge of Law and Justice as an ex officio Member of the NJAC. Clause (c) of Article 124A (1), in my view, impinges upon the principles of "independence of the judiciary", as well as, "separation of powers". It has also been concluded by me, that clause (d) of Article 124A (1) which provides for the inclusion of two "eminent persons" as Members of the NJAC is ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution, for a variety of reasons. The same has also been held as violative of the "basic structure" of the Constitution.
But fascinatingly, Khehar admitted that all is not well even with the collegium system and this is the time to improve it. However, the Supreme Court invited the government to help the judiciary to improve and better the existing collegium system.
Khehar also headed a historic five judge Constitution bench in Nabam Rebia & Bamand Felix v. Bamang Felix Deputy Speaker & Others, [2016(8) SCC 1] that reinstated the Congress-led Arunachal Pradesh Government and held all the actions of the Governor violative of the Constitution. Alluding S. R. Bommai v. Union of India [(1994)3 SCC 1] Khehar avowed that it had: "all the powers to put the clock back".
The Supreme Court bench headed by Khehar imposed an exemplary cost of Rs. 25 lakh on NGO Suraz India Trust for filing 64 frivolous cases in various high courts and also in the apex court and wasting the judicial time. (Decided on 1 May 2017).
Khehar in State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh (Decided on 26 October 2016) gave a significant verdict holding that the principal of 'equal pay for equal work' has to be made applicable to those engaged as daily wagers, casual and contractual employees who perform the same duties as the regulars.
Khehar was also a part of the bench which sent Sahara Chief Subrata Roy to jail while hearing the matter relating to the refund of money invested by people in his two companies.
Heading a three-judge bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court Khehar decided a case involving definition of a Sikh. He held that religion must be perceived as it is, and not as another would like it to be. [7]
Right to Privacy verdict officially known as Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India, in which a nine-judge bench including Khehar held that the right to privacy is protected as a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. [8]
As an aftermath of Supreme Court's landmark decision in the 2G spectrum case, the government of India filed a presidential reference before the Supreme Court. Khehar gave a separate concurring opinion in which he warned that the government should not be under erroneous impression that it is not necessary to allocate natural resources through auction. [9]
No part of the natural resource can be dissipated as a matter of largess, charity, donation or endowment, for private exploitation. Each bit of natural resource expended must bring back a reciprocal consideration.
Khehar was one of the judges on multi-faith bench that heard the controversial Triple Talaq case in 2017. [10] [11] Though Khehar upheld the practice of validity of Triple Talaq (Talaq-e-Biddat), [12] it was barred by the bench by 3:2 majority and asked the Central government to bring legislation in six months to govern marriage and divorce in the Muslim community. [13] [14] The court said till the government formulates a law regarding triple talaq, there would be an injunction on husbands pronouncing triple talaq on their wives. [15] [16]
On January 10, 2017, Justice Khehar [heading a bench of 3 judges] ordered Kerala State Government to compensate about 5000 victims of endosulfan poisoning. A total of Rs 500 crores was to be disbursed among them, within a period of three months. A petition in this respect had been filed by the Democratic Youth Federation of India.[ citation needed ]
In 2017, the Committee on Judicial Accountability published the suicide note written by former Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister, Kalikho Pul. In the note, Pul claimed that Khehar had demanded ₹49 crore (Para 15.22, Page 39) and ₹31 crore (Para 15.27, Page 41) in bribes from Pul for delivering a favourable verdict. [17] The Committee on Judicial Accountability has demanded a probe in the matter. [18]
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.
The Gujarat High Court is the High Court of the state of Gujarat. It was established on 1 May 1960 under the Bombay Re-organisation Act, 1960 after the state of Gujarat split from Bombay State.
The Uttarakhand High Court is the High Court of the state of Uttarakhand in India. The Uttarakhand High Court was established on 9 November 2000 after the separation of the state of Uttarakhand from Uttar Pradesh.
The basic structure doctrine is a common law legal doctrine that the constitution of a sovereign state has certain characteristics that cannot be erased by its legislature. The doctrine is recognised in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Uganda. It was developed by the Supreme Court of India in a series of constitutional law cases in the 1960s and 1970s that culminated in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, where the doctrine was formally adopted. Bangladesh is perhaps the only legal system in the world which recognizes this doctrine with an expressed, written and rigid constitutional manner through article 7B of its Constitution.
Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud is an Indian jurist, who served as the 50th Chief Justice of India from 9 November 2022 to 10 November 2024. He was appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of India in May 2016. He has also previously served as the chief justice of the Allahabad High Court from 2013 to 2016 and as a judge of the Bombay High Court from 2000 to 2013. He also served as the ex-officio Patron-in-Chief of the National Legal Services Authority and the de facto Chancellor of the National Law School of India University.
Rohinton Fali Nariman is a former judge of the Supreme Court of India. Before being elevated as a judge, he practised as a senior counsel at the Supreme Court. He was appointed the Solicitor General of India on 23 July 2011. He also served as a member of the Bar Council of India. He was designated as a Senior Counsel by Chief Justice Manepalli Narayana Rao Venkatachaliah in 1993 at the early age of 37.
Dipak Misra is an Indian jurist who served as the 45th Chief Justice of India from 28 August 2017 till 2 October 2018. 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.
The Indian Judicial Collegium system, where existing judges appoint judges to the nation's constitutional courts, has its genesis in, and continued basis resting on, three of its own judgments made by Supreme Court judges, which are collectively known as the Three Judges Cases. The collegium system has often been alleged to have caste bias due to the lack of representation of marginalised communities, i.e., OBCs, SCs and STs, in the Supreme Court and high courts.
Kurian Joseph is a former judge of the Supreme Court of India. Previously, he has served as chief justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court and judge of the Kerala High Court.
Kalikho Pul was an Indian politician and former Chief Minister of the north-eastern state of Arunachal Pradesh for a brief time in 2016. He was elected five times from the Hayuliang Vidhan Sabha constituency representing the Indian National Congress. With the support of a few elected members of Congress and the opposing Bharatiya Janata Party, he took Chief Ministership of Arunachal Pradesh. However, the Supreme Court of India ruled against this appointment on various grounds. On 9 August 2016, Pul allegedly committed suicide by hanging at his official residence in Itanagar; Pul's supporters protested in Itanagar demanding an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
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 of the supreme court, he practised as a senior advocate 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.
The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was a proposed body which would have been responsible for the recruitment, appointment and transfer of judicial officers, legal officers and legal employees under the government of India and in all state governments of India. The commission was established by amending the Constitution of India through the 99th constitution amendment with the Constitution (Ninety-Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 or 99th Constitutional Amendment Act-2014 passed by the Lok Sabha on 13 August 2014 and by the Rajya Sabha on 14 August 2014. The NJAC would have replaced the collegium system for the appointment of judges as invoked by the Supreme Court via judicial fiat by a new system. Along with the Constitution Amendment Act, the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014, was also passed by the Parliament of India to regulate the functions of the National Judicial Appointments Commission. The NJAC Bill and the Constitutional Amendment Bill, was ratified by 16 of the state legislatures in India, and subsequently assented by the President of India Pranab Mukherjee on 31 December 2014. The NJAC Act and the Constitutional Amendment Act came into force from 13 April 2015.
Starting April 2015, the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh underwent a political crisis. The Indian National Congress party in the Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly was divided between supporters of the serving Chief Minister Nabam Tuki and supporters of Kalikho Pul. In 2016, the President's rule was imposed ending Tuki's tenure as the chief minister. In February 2016, Kalikho Pul became the Chief Minister when 14 disqualified MLAs were reinstated by the Supreme Court. On 13 July 2016, the Supreme Court quashed the Arunachal Pradesh Governor J.P. Rajkhowa’s order to advance the Assembly session from 14 January 2016 to 16 December 2015, which resulted in President's rule in Arunachal Pradesh. As a result, Tuki was restored as the Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh on 13 July 2016. But hours before proving majority, he resigned as the Chief Minister on 16 July 2016. He was succeeded by Pema Khandu, who in September 2016 left the INC and joined People's Party of Arunachal along with majority MLAs. He further joined BJP in December 2016 along with majority MLAs.
Syed Abdul Nazeer is the 22nd Governor of Andhra Pradesh. He is a former judge of the Supreme Court of India and a former judge of the Karnataka High Court. He was appointed the Governor of Andhra Pradesh on 12 February 2023.
Triple talaq and talaq-e-mughallazah are now-banned means of Islamic divorce previously available to Muslims in India, especially adherents of Hanafi Sunni Islamic schools of jurisprudence. A Muslim man could legally divorce his wife by proclaiming three times consecutively the word talaq.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) &Anr. vs. Union of India &Ors. (2017), commonly known as the Right to Privacy verdict, was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India, which held that the right to privacy is protected as a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The original petitioner Justice K.S. Puttaswamy was former judge of the Karnataka High Court
xt Judicial review in India is a process by which the Supreme Court and the High Courts of India examine, determine and invalidate the Executive or Legislative actions inconsistent with the Constitution of India. The term judicial review finds no mention in the Constitution of India but the Constitution implicitly provides for judicial review through Articles 13, 32 and through 136, 142 and 226.
The Ninety-ninth Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution Act, 2014, formed a National Judicial Appointments Commission. 16 State assemblies out of 29 States including Goa, Rajasthan, Tripura, Gujarat and Telangana ratified the Central Legislation, enabling the President of India to give assent to the bill. The amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court on 16 October 2015.
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."