Rohinton Fali Nariman

Last updated

Rohinton Fali Nariman
Justice R.F. Nariman.jpg
Judge of the Supreme Court of India
In office
7 July 2014 –12 August 2021
Alma mater Shri Ram College of Commerce (B.Com Hons.)
University of Delhi (LLB)
Harvard University (LLM)

Rohinton Fali Nariman (born 13 August 1956) is a former judge of the Supreme Court of India. [3] 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. [4] He also served as a member of the Bar Council of India. [5] He was designated as a Senior Counsel by Chief Justice Manepalli Narayana Rao Venkatachaliah in 1993 at the early age of 37. [4] [6] [7]

Contents

Early life and education

Nariman is the son of Fali Sam Nariman, [8] a distinguished Indian jurist. He received his early education in Mumbai, at the Cathedral and John Connon School. [9] He completed his undergraduate B.Com. degree from Shri Ram College of Commerce. He completed his Bachelor of Laws from Campus Law Centre of the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, where he ranked 2nd in the batch. He then went to Harvard Law School for his Master of Laws degree in 1980–81 where he was taught by stalwarts like Laurence Tribe and Roberto Mangabeira Unger.[ citation needed ]

Career

Nariman joined the Bar as an advocate in 1979. [10] The Times of India placed him among top ten lawyers of his time. [11] After his year at Harvard, he practised maritime law in New York at Haight, Gardner, Poor & Havens for a year. [2] [12]

He was designated as a senior advocate at the Supreme Court of India from 15 December 1993 at the young age of 37. [13] While appointing him Chief Justice Manepalli Narayana Rao Venkatachaliah amended the rules as Nariman was of 37 years old and the minimum age for being made a senior in the Supreme Court was 45. [8]

He has been practising law for the last 30 years and has more than 500 reported Supreme Court judgments to his credit. [14] He is an expert in Comparative Constitutional Law and Civil Law. He has argued numerous cases, including the constitutional bench judgments of P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra [15] and State of Punjab v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. [16]

In a case he argued, Enercon (India) Ltd. v. Enercon GMBH, Civil Appeal No. 2086 of 2014, Nariman has clarified the arbitration law on the seat/venue dichotomy. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Scotch Whisky Assn., (2008) 10 SCC 723 is a landmark case in trademark law wherein the arguments of Nariman that the class of buyer may be relevant to the determination of a passing off action and it is not always the test of the prudent man which would apply was accepted.

He has argued the cases for theatre artist Vijay Tendulkar and the controversy-marred play Sakharam Binder. He claims that these two cases have been the turning points of his life. [11] He has handled the high-profile case of gas sharing between the Reliance Industries Limited (led by Mukesh Ambani) and Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (which is led by Anil Ambani). [7] [17]

He has set up the Supreme Court Lawyers Welfare Trust which works for the welfare of lawyers and encourages young talent. [11] [18]

Solicitor General

Nariman was of 55 years old when he was appointed the Solicitor General of India. [8]

Resignation

After being at the post of Solicitor General of India for eighteen months, Nariman resigned on 4 February 2013. The reason for this is not known though it was said that he shared a poor rapport with the then-Law Minister Ashwani Kumar. [19] [20]

Supreme Court of India

Nariman was elevated as a judge of the Supreme Court on 7 July 2014. He was the fifth Supreme Court judge to be elevated directly from the Bar. He reached the retirement age of 65 on 12 August 2021. [21]

Publications

In November 2016, Nariman's book on the Zoroastrian religion, The Inner Fire, was released. The book is an analysis of the Gathas. [22]

Notable judgements

Freedom of speech

Nariman and Jasti Chelameswar formed the two judge bench of the Supreme Court of India which struck down a controversial law which gave Indian police the power to arrest anyone accused of posting emails or other electronic messages which "causes annoyance or inconvenience". The judges held Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which made such offenses punishable up to three years imprisonment, to be unconstitutional. The judgement was authored by Nariman. [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] According to Nariman and Chelameswar, several terms in the law they were striking down were "open-ended, undefined and vague" which made them nebulous in nature. According to the judges: "What may be offensive to one may not be offensive to another. What may cause annoyance or inconvenience to one may not cause annoyance or inconvenience to another." [27]

In their judgement, the judges clarified that a distinction needs to be made between discussion, advocacy, and incitement. Any discussion, or advocacy of even an unpopular cause cannot be restricted, and it is only when such discussion or advocacy reaches the level of incitement whereby it causes public disorder or affects the security of the state can it be curbed. [25] [26] [27]

The judgement has been welcomed for defending the Indian Constitution's ideals of tolerance and the constitutional provisions of free speech. [28] [29] It has been pointed out that the controversial law struck down by Nariman and Chelameswar had gained notoriety after many people in India started getting arrested for seemingly innocuous reasons on the ground that they had violated the now scrapped law. [26] [28] [29] [30]

Triple Talaq

In a landmark judgement, a five-judge bench struck down instantaneous triple talaq by 3–2 majority and termed it void, illegal and unconstitutional. While Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Nariman and Justice U. U. Lalit struck down the practice; Chief Justice JS Khehar and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer asked parliament to make a law in this regard. [31] Justice Nariman's judgement was against the practice of Triple Talaq where he stated "Triple Talaq is a disapproved form of divorce. Even the Hanafi law says triple talaq is sinful. 1937 Act recognizes triple talaq and therefore does not violate Article 13. It is not possible for the court to fold his hands when petitioners come to court. [32] Practice of triple talaq is bad and can be tested as legislation. [32] "

Sabarimala

Justice Nariman, along with Justice DY Chandrachud, delivered a dissent in Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association. [33] He held that the decision of five judges in the Sabarimala case which held that women of the ages of ten and fifty shall not be denied entry to the Sabarimala temple is not a fit case for the exercise of review jurisdiction as the judgment does not suffer from an error apparent on the face of record. The dissent observed that the executive is under a constitutional obligation to implement the decisions of the Supreme Court even if they were not parties before them. [34] [35] Justice Nariman observed:

Bona fide criticism of a judgment, albeit of the highest court of the land, is certainly permissible, but thwarting, or encouraging persons to thwart, the directions or orders of the highest court cannot be countenanced in our Constitutional scheme of things.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of India</span> Highest court of jurisdiction in India

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.

<i>Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum</i> Maintenance lawsuit in India

Mohd. Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum [1985], commonly referred to as the Shah Bano case, was a controversial maintenance lawsuit in India, in which the Supreme Court delivered a judgment favouring maintenance given to an aggrieved divorced Muslim woman. Then the Congress government enacted a law with its most controversial aspect being the right to maintenance for the period of iddat after the divorce, and shifting the onus of maintaining her to her relatives or the Waqf Board. It was seen as discriminatory as it denied right to basic maintenance available to Muslim women under secular law.

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.

Bellur Narayanaswamy Srikrishna is an Indian jurist and a retired judge of the Supreme Court of India. From 1993 to 1998, he headed the "Srikrishna Commission" that investigated causes and apportioned blame for the Bombay riots of 1992–93. In 2010, he headed the "Srikrishna Committee" that was constituted to look into the demand for separate statehood for Telangana. He is the chairman of the Financial Sector Legislative Reforms Commission (FSLRC) and also works as an independent arbitrator.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gopal Ballav Pattanaik</span> 32nd Chief Justice of India

Gopal Ballav Pattanaik is an Indian lawyer and later a jurist who served over a period of 19 years in the bench of the Odisha High Court as a permanent judge, as chief justice of the Patna High Court, Judge of the Supreme Court of India and as the 32nd Chief Justice of India.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud</span> Chief Justice of India from 2022 to 2024

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fali Sam Nariman</span> Indian jurist (1929–2024)

Fali Sam Nariman was an Indian jurist. He was a senior advocate to the Supreme Court of India from 1971 and was the President of the Bar Association of India from 1991 to 2010. Nariman was an internationally recognised jurist on international arbitration and was also noted for his impact on constitutional jurisprudence in India. He was honoured with the 19th Lal Bahadur Shastri National Award for Excellence in Public Administration in 2018. He was one of India's most distinguished constitutional lawyers and argued several leading cases. He was the Additional Solicitor General of India from May 1972 to June 1975.

Gopal Subramanium is an Indian lawyer, international arbitrator, academic and Senior Advocate who practices primarily in the Supreme Court of India and the Delhi High Court. He served as the Solicitor General of India 2009–2011 and Additional Solicitor General of India 2005–2009. He served as Chairman of the Bar Council of India 2010–2011.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jasti Chelameswar</span> Indian judge (born 1953)

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jagdish Singh Khehar</span> Indian jurist (born 1952)

Jagdish Singh Khehar is an Indian jurist, who served as the 44th Chief Justice of India from 4 January 2017 to 27 August 2017. He was the first Sikh Chief Justice of India. 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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ranjan Gogoi</span> 46th Chief Justice of India, Member of Rajya Sabha

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dipak Misra</span> 45th Chief Justice of India

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Triple talaq in India</span> Form of Islamic divorce

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kurian Joseph</span> Indian judge (born 1953)

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sharad Bobde</span> 47th Chief Justice of India

Sharad Arvind Bobde is an Indian judge who served as the 47th Chief Justice of India from 18 November 2019 to 23 April 2021.

<i>Mouthshut.com versus Union of India</i> Indian court case concerning freedom of speech and expression on the Internet

MouthShut.com versus Union of India was a writ petition filed by Mouthshut.com, a consumer review social media company, and its founder Faisal Farooqui, to protect freedom of speech and expression on the Internet. In this case, they challenged Sec. 66A and sought modifications or nullification of IT Rules and Section 79 of the Information Technology Act of India. This case was pivotal in determining the responsibility of intermediaries for online speech in India. On 24 March 2015, the Supreme Court issued a judgment in favor of the petitioner(s) and nullified Sec. 66A, deeming it unconstitutional. It also ordered the reading down of various other sections of the IT Act, including section 79 and the IT Rules. Consequently, individuals are free to post anything online, and publishers cannot be compelled to remove content without a court order. This decision applies to all user-generated content on the Internet.

<i>Shreya Singhal v. Union of India</i> Online Free Speech & IT Act, 2000

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India is a judgement by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India in 2015, on the issue of online speech and intermediary liability in India. The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, relating to restrictions on online speech, as unconstitutional on grounds of violating the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The Court further held that the Section was not saved by virtue of being a 'reasonable restriction' on the freedom of speech under Article 19(2). The Supreme Court also read down Section 79 and Rules under the Section. It held that online intermediaries would only be obligated to take down content on receiving an order from a court or government authority. The case is considered a watershed moment for online free speech in India.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Syed Abdul Nazeer</span> Judge of the Supreme Court of India

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Triple talaq in India</span> Form of Islamic divorce

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.

<i>Puttaswamy v. Union of India</i> Indian Fundamental Rights Case Law

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

References

  1. ↑ Press Bureau of India : Shri Rohinton Fali Nariman Appointed as Solicitor General of India Last Retrieved on 4 February 2013.
  2. 1 2 The BPP Review (17 December 2011) : Solicitor General feted Archived 16 December 2013 at the Wayback Machine Last Retrieved on 4 February 2011.
  3. ↑ "Justice Nariman bids adieu to SC bench after enriching court's docket with key verdicts". The Economic Times. Archived from the original on 12 August 2021. Retrieved 12 August 2021.
  4. 1 2 http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2287939.ece Archived 1 September 2011 at the Wayback Machine , Rohinton Nariman appointed Solicitor-General
  5. ↑ "Office Bearers of Bar Council of India « The Bar Council of India". Archived from the original on 28 March 2014. Retrieved 9 April 2012.
  6. ↑ "Rohinton F. Nariman – Personal Website". Archived from the original on 22 March 2014. Retrieved 30 August 2014.
  7. 1 2 "Rohinton Nariman is new Solicitor General of India". Archived from the original on 15 February 2013. Retrieved 9 April 2012.
  8. 1 2 3 Rohinton Nariman To Be Appointed Solicitor General of India Archived 23 March 2012 at the Wayback Machine .
  9. ↑ The BPP Review (17 December 2011) : Solicitor General feted Archived 16 December 2013 at the Wayback Machine ,
  10. ↑ Legal Era – Rohinton Nariman To Be New Solicitor General Last Retrieved on 4 February 2013.
  11. 1 2 3 India's top 10 lawyers – Times of India Last retrieved on 4 February 2013.
  12. ↑ "Home". rohintonnariman.com. Archived from the original on 22 March 2014. Retrieved 22 March 2014.
  13. ↑ "Home | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA". main.sci.gov.in. Archived from the original on 10 March 2021. Retrieved 12 March 2021.
  14. ↑ Indulia, Bhumika (8 September 2020). "Justice Rohinton Nariman, Judge Supreme Court of India appointed as Chairman of Supreme Court Legal Services Committee". SCC Online Times. Archived from the original on 5 February 2023. Retrieved 27 December 2024.
  15. ↑ (2005) 6 SCC 537.
  16. ↑ (2004) 11 SCC 26.
  17. ↑ "Rohinton Nariman appointed Solicitor General". 28 July 2011.
  18. ↑ Supreme Court Lawyers Welfare Trust encourages young talent; Introduces 2 annual fellowships – Bar and Bench Archived 15 February 2013 at the Wayback Machine Last Retrieved on 4 February 2013.
  19. ↑ NDTV: Solicitor General Rohinton Nariman quits after 18 months in office Last retrieved on 4 February 2013.
  20. ↑ Times of India – Solicitor General RF Nariman resigns Last retrieved on 4 February 2013.
  21. ↑ "Justices Arun Mishra, Adarsh Goel and lawyer Rohinton Nariman appointed Supreme Court judges". Economic Times. PTI. 26 June 2014. Archived from the original on 29 June 2014. Retrieved 30 August 2014.
  22. ↑ "Religion has claimed more lives than politics, says CJI". The Hindu. 21 November 2016. Archived from the original on 23 November 2016. Retrieved 23 November 2016.
  23. ↑ "Section 66A: India court strikes down 'Facebook' arrest law". BBC. 24 March 2015. Archived from the original on 14 November 2016. Retrieved 19 December 2016.
  24. ↑ "India supreme court strikes down internet censorship law". The Guardian. 24 March 2015. Retrieved 19 December 2016.
  25. 1 2 "A blow for free speech". The Hoot. 25 March 2015. Archived from the original on 22 April 2017. Retrieved 19 December 2016.
  26. 1 2 3 "Supreme Court upholds free speech on internet, scraps 'unconstitutional' Section 66A of IT Act". Hindustan Times. 25 March 2015. Archived from the original on 17 December 2016. Retrieved 19 December 2016.
  27. 1 2 3 "SC strikes down 'draconian' Section 66A". The Hindu. 24 March 2015. Retrieved 19 December 2016.
  28. 1 2 "The judgment that silenced Section 66A". The Hindu. 26 March 2015. Archived from the original on 21 December 2016. Retrieved 19 December 2016.
  29. 1 2 "Our Politicians Loved Section 66(A)". NDTV. 24 March 2015. Retrieved 19 December 2016.
  30. ↑ "Stats from 2014 reveal horror of scrapped section 66A of IT Act". Hindustan Times. 20 August 2015. Archived from the original on 19 December 2016. Retrieved 19 December 2016.
  31. ↑ Desk, India com News (22 August 2017). "Triple Talaq Verdict Not Unanimous, Implementation Would Be a Herculean Task: Owaisi". India News, Breaking News | India.com. Archived from the original on 22 July 2018. Retrieved 12 March 2021.{{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  32. 1 2 "Kapil Sibal In Court Opposed Ending Triple Talaq. His Reaction To The Ban". NDTV.com. Archived from the original on 7 November 2017. Retrieved 12 March 2021.
  33. ↑ "Raajevaru Judgment" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 September 2020.
  34. ↑ "Govt Must Read 'Extremely Important' Dissent Order in Sabarimala Verdict: Justice Nariman". News18. 15 November 2019. Archived from the original on 21 December 2019. Retrieved 22 April 2020.
  35. ↑ Scroll Staff (15 November 2019). "'Read dissenting view in Sabarimala verdict, our orders not to be played with': SC judge to Centre". Scroll.in. Archived from the original on 18 April 2020. Retrieved 22 April 2020.
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.