No doubts, Justice Dipak Misra’s tenure will be always remembered for historic landmark judgments but his tenure will also be remembered for the controversies that have surrounded him at the top post of the apex court. Perhaps the most controversial tenure in the history of the supreme court of India.

The judgments passed by his bench will certainly rank him as a Chief Justice who vindicated the spirit of the Constitution through his pronouncements.

Justice Misra joined the Supreme Court bench in the year 2011. In the last eight years, firstly as a judge of the apex court of the country and then as the CJI, Justice Misra was associated with several landmark judgments during his tenure at the Supreme Court. He interpreted the Constitution to expand the scope of fundamental rights. Also, during his tenure as the CJI, four senior judges held a dramatic press conference, which was seen as a mutiny in the Indian judiciary, which has been famous for its brotherhood. Justice Misra’s 13-month tenure as the 45^th CJI, of which he assumed office on August 28, 2017 was cinematically eventful, adored by a series of landmark judgments, two unconventional midnight hearings at the Apex Court, differences with the government, rumors of him being nepotistic and an unprecedented press conference by four senior judges of the Supreme Court.

Here in this article we list the controversies surfaced around him and his landmark verdicts as follows:

Controversies

Outside his judicial functions, he dragged the supreme court into a period of chaos and earned the dubious distinction of being the first chief justice against whom an impeachment motion was attempted.

Within a month of Misra taking over as chief justice came what is now called the “medical colleges scam.” A first information report registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation on Sept. 19, 2017 claimed that attempts had been made to manipulate supreme court proceedings to obtain permissions in favour of a medical college run by the Lucknow-based Prasad Education Trust, and named former Odisha High Court judge IM Quddusi as an accused.

In October, activists moved petitions seeking an independent inquiry into the matter. On Nov. 9, the petitions were mentioned before a bench headed by justice J Chelameswar, who was then the second most senior judge, as Misra was presiding over a constitution bench. Chelameswar sought the formation of a five-judge bench to deal with the petitions.

The next day, following an order from a two-judge bench handling a similar petition, a constitution bench was quickly put together to nullify the orders of Chelameswar’s bench. In the process, the power of the chief justice as master of the roster was asserted. Later, the petitions were dismissed.

This resulted in Four senior judges of the supreme court who comprised the collegium at the time—Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur, and Kurian Joseph—meeting the press in January and, in the process, laid out a series of questions on the functioning of the chief justice in assigning cases to particular benches.

“The administration of the supreme court is not in order,” the judges said at the press conference. The implication of the statement was clear. There was an attempt to fix benches and senior judges were being kept out of important cases. The independence of the judiciary was in peril.

In the interview, Justice Chelameswar was reported saying that “the administration of the Supreme Court is not in order and many things which are less than desirable have happened in the last few months. We owe a responsibility to the institution and the nation. Our efforts have failed in convincing CJI to take steps to protect the institution.”

After the press conference, several opposition party came forward to bring impeachment motion against Dipak Misra. The draft proposal has called Misra’s case as “abuse of authority to arbitrarily assign individual cases to select judges”, according to media reports.

Prasad Education Trust case: One of the cases under the radar is illegal gratification in the Prasad Education Trust case, according to News 18. The case pertains to accepting bribery by medical institutions for getting clearances to set up medical colleges. It has been alleged that Misra had submitted a false affidavit allowing the acquisition of lands to the institutions for building medical colleges.

Justice Loya’s death: Dipak Misra had allegedly refused SC judges’ petition, which demanded an independent probe against Loya’s death, according to the presser of the four senior SC judges.

The impeachment motion was later dismissed by Vice President.

Dipak Misra at the Independence Day function organised in the Supreme Court by the Supreme Court Bar Association, said that it was easy to criticise, attack and destroy a system but instead an endeavour should be made to transform and reform it. “There may be some elements who try to weaken the institution,” but the judiciary will refuse to succumb, Chief Justice Misra said in an apparent reference to discordant voices coming from within the top judiciary and outside.

After the storm of the press conference and impeachment motion, the focus was back on the judicial functions of the chief justice. Despite the protests of the four judges, they continued to be kept off important cases.

Important Judgments by his Bench

Online FIRs

In case of Own Motion vs. State, Justice Misra passed an order directing the Delhi Police to upload the FIRs on the website within 24 hours of their lodging.

Reservation in Promotions case

In another case concerning reservation, Justice Misra and Justice Dalveer Bhandari rejected decision of the Uttar Pradesh government to give reservations in the promotions.

National Anthem case

Justice Misra bench of the Supreme Court had made playing the national anthem in cinema halls mandatory in 2016. However, Justice Dipak Misra-headed bench amended the national anthem ruling twice making it optional to play and stand during the national anthem in the cinema halls.

Right to Reputation case

Hearing petitions filed by a few politicians including Rahul Gandhi from Indian National Congress, Arvind Kejriwal of Aam Aadmi Party and Subramanian Swamy of Bhartiya Janta Party in May 2017, Justice Dipak Misra held reputation of a person could not be allowed to be crucified at the altar of the other’s right of free speech. Justice Dipak Misra ruled, “The right to reputation is a constituent of Article 21 of the Constitution. It is an individual’s fundamental right.” The bench upheld the 156-year-old defamation law. Interestingly in this case top criminal lawyer and father of Hon’ble Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Mr. U.R. Lalit was appearing as a defense attorney of Rahul Gandhi. However, Justice Misra did not recognize the senior Lalit and went on to inquire about his practice in criminal law.

The 377 verdict

In one of its most celebrated verdicts, Supreme Court declared Section 377 of the IPC as unconstitutional. Section 377 made gay sex a criminal offence with a provision for jail term up to five years. With this, India is now one of the 26 counties were homosexuality is legal.

Adultery Judgment

Last week started with the bench of Supreme Court led by CJI Misra holding Section 497 of the IPC as unconstitutional. Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code deals with Adultery.

Aadhaar Judgment

With a difference of opinion to the Central Government, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Aadhaar. The Supreme Court held the constitutionality of Aadhaar but ruled that the UIDAI project could not be made mandatory for any social welfare scheme and availing rights.

On Sabrimala issue

CJI Dipak Misra-led bench said that women of all age are allowed to under the Constitution to enter Sabarimala Temple. Justice Dipak Misra held that religion is a way of life that is meant to link life with dignity.

Can elected representatives practice Law

A PIL was filed by BJP Leader and Sr. Advocate Ashwani Kumar demanding ban on the practice of lawyers who are elected as a MLA/MP or a Minister. The bench led by Justice Misra held that as the profession of an elected representative does not fall within the rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules, lawmakers (with a law degree) can practice law as a profession.

Supreme Court Live

The Justice Misra led bench also held that there would be live telecast of the cases involving national and international importance. The bench held that live streaming of the Supreme Court proceedings would bring transparency and accountability to the judicial process and was a step to be taken in public interest.

RamJanmbhoomi-Babri Masjid case(Ayodhya)

A three judge bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, by a majority of 2:1 declined to set up a larger bench for a relook of its 1994 verdict which held a “mosque is not an essential part of the practice of Islam”. The apex court will now hear the main Ayodhya title suit from October 29.

Hadiya Case

A 24 year old girl from Kerala married a boy from another religious group and the Kerala High Court invalidated the marriage. In the order authored by CJI Misra set aside the impugned judgment, while allowing continuation of the NIA probe.

Khap Panchayat Case

In this case Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the right to choose life partner is fundamental right, consent of family, community, clan not necessary for marriage between two adults.

The Euthanasia Case

Constitution Bench of Supreme Court of India led by Justice Misra has held that right to die with dignity is a fundamental right. The Bench also held that passive euthanasia and a living will also legally valid. The Court has issued detailed guidelines in this regard.

Meesha Case

Supreme Court bench led by Justice Misra dismissed a petition seeking ban on a Malayalam novel “Meesha” which is about a woman who stood up against caste based practices of worships.

AAP vs. Delhi LG case

In the controversy over who is going to rule Delhi, the Supreme Court led by Justice Misra held that constitutional morality should guide governance and to work in accordance with the rules.

The Midnight hearings

Yakoob Menon death sentence case and the case of Karnataka government formation were the two occasions where Justice Misra was kind enough to allow midnight proceedings to ensure justice is done.

Also Read: The towering and landmark judgments concluded during the tenure of Justice Dipak Misra

Justice Misra shall be remembered as a Judge who has led India into a new era by striking down erstwhile laws and hindrances in the way of fundamental rights and has always acted as a warrior to strengthen the judicial system of India but his tenure will also be remembered for the controversies that have surrounded him at the top post of the apex court. Perhaps the most controversial tenure in the history of the supreme court of India.

The post Between Controversies to Landmark Verdicts: This is why 45th CJI Dipak Misra tenure will be remembered appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

Listed below are the crowning judgements delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in by Bench of 45th CJI in his concluding week:

Decriminalising of section 377 of the Indian Penal Code

The Apex Court on 06.09.2018, in Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. Vs. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, passed a judgment whereby it  decriminalised homosexuality. The decision of making gay sex as no more illegal re-established the members  of LGBTIQ community ‘d utmost confidence, belief and hope in the judicial system of India. The verdict of decriminalising the concept homosexuality between two consenting adults by upholding Section 377 of the IPC as unconstitutional has been one of the monumental victories to boast about.

Reservation pertaining to promotion for the SC/ST employees of the Government

The Apex Court  on 26.09.2018 in Jarnail Singh &Others v Lachhmi Narain Gupta And Others, had dismissed the appeal for reconsidering its own preceding order which  had abandoned the notion of reserving  seats for the  Scheduled Castes (SCs) or Scheduled Tribes (STs) for the  promotions posts   made in Government jobs.

Aadhaar’s Validity

The Hon’ble  Supreme Court of India on 26.09.2018, in  Justice K.S.  Puttaswamy (RETD.) And Another)  v  Union Of India And Others , upheld  the validness of Aadhaar  while revoking Section 57 of  the Aadhaar Act. The Court had opined that the private companies cannot demand for Aadhaar, similarly it shall not be obligatory to open bank accounts, or for securing a mobile connection

The controversial case of Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid

The Supreme Court on 27.09.2018, in M. Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs v Mahant  Suresh Das And Others Etc. had disapproved the  two pleas wheeling around the controversial  Ayodhya case . One which directly dealt with the manner the discarded land had been s split as per the ruling of the Allahabad High Court in 2010 while the other having a straightforward and direct impact upon the ultimate verdict of the Supreme Court in the case.

Adultery declared as no more a crime:

The Apex Court on 27.09.2018, in Joseph Shine v UOI  ,came up with its chronicled judgment where it  historic judgement, the Supreme Court quashed  the offence of adultery as anymore a  criminal offence in India. The court opined that the said Section 497 that defines adultery, tends to treat women as mere properties or commodities  in the hands of the  husbands  which is highly discriminatory in nature. It further crushed the Union Government’s defence that the aforesaid section acts a shield in protecting the sacredness of marriages.

The verdict on Sabrimala (Right to pray):

The Supreme Court on 28.09.2018, in Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors.  v The State of Kerala & Ors. with a ratio of 4:1, elevated  the age old constraint on  women  of the age group of ten to fifty from  entering into the  Sabrimala temple in Kerala . While delivering such mammoth judgement the CJI concluded that such practice in the temple is derogatory and is violative of the rights of a Hindu woman and has to be in consonance with the Indian Constitution.

The Bhima Koregaon arrest

The Supreme Court on 28.09.2018, in Romila Thapar and Ors. v Union of India and Ors ordered  the period of extension  of house arrest of some activities to a period of four more weeks.

Live streaming of  the courtroom  hearings

The Apex court on 26.09.2018, in Swapnil Tripathi  v Supreme Court of India ,agreed upon bringing the courtroom proceedings under  the public eyes through  live-streaming of the various functions of the court, this judgement carved a road for the public to witness the courtroom drama.

Politicians possessing criminal antecedents

The Supreme Court of India on 25.09.2018, in Public Interest Foundation & Ors. v Union of India & Anr. , in  an unison  left it at the option of the Parliament  for enacting a law from barring the  lawmakers from contesting for the post of elections who are  charged for committing heinous offences while  further observing the  that concept of  criminalisation of politics  is a bane to the  blockhouse  of democracy. The Court refused from putting a ban upon such candidatures possessing criminal antecedents from contesting elections; the Court further opined that the law must make it obligatory for all political parties to withdraw the membership of candidates facing criminal cases.

Differently abled persons should not have to face deprivation of information under the RTI ACT

The Apex Court on 27.09.2018, in Aseer Jamal v Union of India & Ors. The Supreme Court disposed of the writ by upholding that there was no further requirement for any directions to be issued excluding to providing of liberty to any petitioner for submitting a representation before an authority which was competent for receiving information under the Act and as such that the representation ought to be dealt in with a sense of empathy and sympathy and that persons who are differently abled ought to have facilities for receiving the information under the Act.

Cancellation of all engineering degrees offered through open distance mode without AICTE’s approval

The Apex Court on 24.09.2018 ,in Jai Singh and Ors. v University Grants Commission and Ors. while dismissing the petition held for recalling and cancellation of the degrees through open distance mode of learning while directing for refunding the money to the enrolled students by the respondent within a stipulated time. Further, the Court gave directions to CBI for carrying out investigation into the officials conduct involved in granting permission against the policy. A restraint was put upon all deemed to be universities from conducting any course through open distance learning mode until made permissible . A Committee was to be conducted for examining the issues and recommending a plan to strengthen and set up regulatory machinery while based on the report submitted by the Committee, the Union of India after properly examining the report may take such actions which are required and file affidavit in the Apex Court for further consideration.

These judgments are not only the landmark judgments but also have in some way or the other benefited the society at large. IF SUCH MASSIVE JUDGMENTS AND DECISION ARE CONTINUED TO BE RATIONALLY passed by the  Hon’ble Supreme Court, then it is for sure that one day the judicial system is sure to have reached  the zenith of success.

The post The towering and landmark judgments concluded during the tenure of Justice Dipak Misra appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

Even the lawyers concede that Justice Misra knows his literature, philosophy and history. His tales in the court from the Shastras are legendary.

Justice Misra’s courtroom is always jam-packed: one is sure of a decision soon enough. He is quick to grasp the nuances of any complicated case and is equally adept at handling tricky situations.

Career

Justice Misra enrolled at the Bar on 14 February 1977 and practiced at the Orissa High Court and the Service Tribunal. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Orissa High Court in 1996 and was later transferred the following year 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 and served until May 2010, when he was appointed Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court. He served in the latter capacity until his elevation to the Supreme Court on 10 October 2011.

Justice Misra has a tenure of almost seven years at the Supreme Court and has been appointed the 45th Chief Justice of India from 28 August 2017 till 2 October 2018, the day he retires on turning 65 years in age.

Notable judgements

Justice Misra’s passed judgment in the Own Motion vs State case, requiring Delhi Police to upload FIRs on their website within 24 hours of the FIRs being lodged, in order to enable the accused to file appropriate applications before the court for redressal of their grievances.

In a case on Reservation in the 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.

Justice Misra led the bench which rejected the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts convict Yakub Memon’s appeal to stop his execution. He then received a death threat in writing, an anonymous letter which says “irrespective of the protection you may avail, we will eliminate you.” He has been assigned high security following death threats after he upheld the capital punishment for a mastermind of the 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts.

Justice Mishra was part of the bench that ordered playing of the National anthem before screening of films. In a few days, a bench headed by the 63-year-old judge will start hearing the vexed issue of Ayodhya title dispute.

A three judge bench led by Justice Misra has upheld the death sentence awarded to the four convicts of the Nirbhaya rape case on 5th May, 2017.

Justice Misra authored the landmark judgement confirming the death penalty of four convicts in the brutal Nirbhaya gangrape 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”.

He had upheld constitutionality of criminal defamation. 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.

The post All about Dipak Misra: 45th Chief Justice of India; Notable Judgments, Life & Career appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.