CJI
U.U Lalit was sworn in as the 49th Chief Justice of India, having a short
tenure of 74 days. Despite a short tenure, CJI U.U Lalit has done a tremendous
job by listing the case involving substantial questions of law and disposing of
1293 miscellaneous matters, 106 regular matters, and 440 transfer matters in 4
days. There has been an immense belief in CJI U.U Lalit that he will do justice
to his post.[i]
In
this view, the author shall try to give a peak at CJI UU Lalit’s background and
his hard work in this short tenure of 74 days.
Journey to the 49th
Chief Justice of India
CJI Uday Umesh Lalit was born on November 9th, 1957 in Solapur, Maharashtra to his father Justice U.R Lalit (an Additional Judge at the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court). He attained his law degree from Government Law College, Mumbai and enrolled as an advocate in the year 1983, and practiced at the Bombay High Court from 1983 to 1985. Further in his career, he also worked in the chambers of the Attorney General of India, Soli Sorabjee (1986 to 1992).[ii]
His
expertise in criminal law and representation in high-profile cases such as
Salman Khan’s poaching case, Tulsiram Prajapati’s fake encounter case, and the
role of Special Public Prosecutor in the 2G Spectrum scam case led to his promotion
as Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court in 2004. After 10 years of practice as
a senior advocate, CJI UU Lalit was elevated as the Supreme Court Judge
directly from the Bar. And then as the Chief Justice of India.
Notable Listing Of
Cases During The Tenure
The
Supreme Court has been working at a wild pace with a list of 60 to 70 cases
daily. Also, the first five senior-most judges presided over the constitutional
benches. Several challenges such as :
The legality of the Citizenship Amendment Act
Demonetization of Rs. 500 and Rs 2000 notes,
The Maharashtra political crises
Power of Delhi Government vis-a-vis Lieutenant Governor,
The legality of polygamy and the Right to Excommunication of the Bohra Community, etc.[iii]
Constitution Bench led by CJI UU Lalit, Justice Ravindra Bhat, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Justice Bela Trivedi, and Justice JB Pardiwala has upheld the 103rd Constitutional Amendment in education and public employment. CJI UU Lalit has concurred with the dissenting opinion of Justice Ravindra Bhat. Justice Ravindra Bhat has struck down the whole amendment as unconstitutional.
In
the said case the issue was pertaining to the power of the speaker to deny
pension of the disqualified MLAs, the Bench comprising Chief Justice U.U.
Lalit, Justice Ravindra Bhat, and Justice J.B. Pardiwala viewed that the
Speaker of a Legislative Assembly does not have the power to deny pension and
other benefits to a former MLA while deciding on a disqualification plea
against him.
In
this case, the Bench comprising Chief Justice U.U. Lalit, Justice Ravindra
Bhat, and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, discussed the scope of Section 102 of CrPC
(provides that police officers have the power to seize property that is likely
to be stolen, or found in a suspicious state) and found that public interest
litigation under Article 32 was not the correct remedy for the matter.
According to CJI UU Lalit, “If there are individual cases where according to
the person there has been non-compliance, the concerned person is at liberty to
file for appropriate proceedings. The grievance raised in the petition is not
something which must be dealt with under Article 32.”
In this case, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice U.U.Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat have upheld the Bombay High Court’s order directing Bajaj Allianz General Insurance to compensate, under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima, Yojana 3,57,287 farmers in the Osmanabad district of Maharashtra for post-harvesting losses caused to Soya bean crop in the Kharif season 2020 on account of heavy rainfall.
The
present case is related to the reinstatement of a watchman who was illegally
dismissed 20 years ago in which the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice of
India UU Lalit and Justice S Ravindra Bhat observed that there must be no
perversity or unreasonableness on the part of the single judge, thereby
directing the watchman reinstatement.
In
this case, a three-judge bench of the
Supreme Court comprising CJI UU Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, and Justice JB
Pardiwala held that Part IXB of the Indian Constitution, inserted by the 97th
amendment Act, 2011 does not apply to local co-operative societies. Rather, it
shall apply only to the multi-State co-operative societies and the societies
within the Union territories.
In
this case, the Supreme Court bench CJI U.U Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, and
Justice JB Pardiwala observed that a delay in passing the detention order must
be reasonable and explained and there should be a “live and proximate
link” between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention. An
absence of reasonableness will result in the order being vitiated.
In
this case, the Supreme Court bench comprising CJI U.U Lalit, Justice S.
Ravindra Bhat, and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia observed that video confession before
police officers is hit by Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
rendering the evidence inadmissible in the court of law.
In
this case, the Supreme Bench comprising
CJI UU Lalit, Justices S. Ravindra Bhat, and JB Pardiwala acquitted a
man who was sentenced to death for the alleged murder of his wife and his four
kids stating that the investigation was perfunctory.
In
this case, the Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India UU Lalit,
Justice S Ravindra Bhat, and Justice Ajay Rastogi was hearing a writ petition
filed by the NGO Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) which highlighted the
issue of Section 66A IT Act being invoked despite the judgment in Shreya
Singhal v. UOI (2015) and directed that no one should be prosecuted under
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000, which was struck down as
unconstitutional in Shreya Singhal Case.
In
the case, the Supreme Court bench
comprising CJI UU Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, and Justice P.S. Narasimha
held that educational trusts or societies, which seek exemption under Section
10 (23C) of the Income Tax Act, should solely be concerned with education, or
education-related activities.
In this case, the Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice U.U Lalit, Justice Ravindra Bhat, and Justice Bela M.Trivedi observed that an accused being produced in the courtroom was a fundamental part of the criminal justice system, thereby refusing to entertain a Public Interest Litigation seeking directions to prevent undertrial prisoners from being produced in court to ensure the safety of judges, prisoners and others inside the courtroom.
List of Judgements
Reserved In the Tenure
As
discussed above, CJI U.U Lalit did a commendable job of listing most of the
important issues to the constituted constitutional benches. Hence, provided
before are a list of cases that have been reversed by constitutional benches
after post-hearing.
Striking Down Of A Provision Granting
Immunity From Arrest
In
the CBI v. Dr. R.R. Kishore, the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court
comprising Justices S.K. Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice A. S. Oka,
Justice Vikram Nath, and Justice J. K. Maheshwari reserved the judgement on the
issue of whether striking a provision that grants immunity from arrest will
have a retroactive effect, especially in light of the constitutional rights
guaranteed by Article 20.
Conclusion
After a fair reading of the above writeup, it becomes clear that CJI UU Lalit has indeed done justice to his post. He was proactive to list important cases involving questions of law and ensured the working of the Supreme Court in full efficiency. His professionalism is a virtue that can be learned by all. In India, where there are millions of pendency cases, every lower and the higher court must work at the pace witnessed in these two and a half months. Not only did CJI U.U Lalit ensure the efficient functioning of the administration but also sat on different benches as witnessed above to ensure complete justice and transparency.
During the last working day the 49th CJI UU Lalit heading the Ceremonial Bench along with 50th CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice BM Trivedi said:
”I have practiced at the Supreme Court for about 37 years, but I have never seen two Constitution Benches sitting simultaneously. But, after I became the Chief Justice, on a particular day, there were three Constitution Benches. It was also the day we started live-streaming. So, I leave with a sense of great achievement and satisfaction.”
49th CJI UU Lalit and 50th CJI DY Chandrachud
Arshnit Sandhuhas completed her LLM in Corporate and Commercial Law from the National University of Study and Research in Law (NUSRL), Ranchi.
Disclaimer: The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the text belong solely to the author and not to the Jurisedge Academy.
Chief Justice of India is the highest rank of a judicial officer in the Supreme Court. The rank ought to bring huge responsibility on the shoulders of the appointed Chief. read more…
Nuthalapati Venkata Ramana was born on 27th August 1957 in an agrarian family and is the 48th Chief Justice of India. Formerly he was a student activist fighting for civil liberties during. read more…
Jurisedge Academy
Share post:
CJI U.U Lalit was sworn in as the 49th Chief Justice of India, having a short tenure of 74 days. Despite a short tenure, CJI U.U Lalit has done a tremendous job by listing the case involving substantial questions of law and disposing of 1293 miscellaneous matters, 106 regular matters, and 440 transfer matters in 4 days. There has been an immense belief in CJI U.U Lalit that he will do justice to his post.[i]
In this view, the author shall try to give a peak at CJI UU Lalit’s background and his hard work in this short tenure of 74 days.
Journey to the 49th Chief Justice of India
CJI Uday Umesh Lalit was born on November 9th, 1957 in Solapur, Maharashtra to his father Justice U.R Lalit (an Additional Judge at the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court). He attained his law degree from Government Law College, Mumbai and enrolled as an advocate in the year 1983, and practiced at the Bombay High Court from 1983 to 1985. Further in his career, he also worked in the chambers of the Attorney General of India, Soli Sorabjee (1986 to 1992).[ii]
His expertise in criminal law and representation in high-profile cases such as Salman Khan’s poaching case, Tulsiram Prajapati’s fake encounter case, and the role of Special Public Prosecutor in the 2G Spectrum scam case led to his promotion as Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court in 2004. After 10 years of practice as a senior advocate, CJI UU Lalit was elevated as the Supreme Court Judge directly from the Bar. And then as the Chief Justice of India.
Notable Listing Of Cases During The Tenure
The Supreme Court has been working at a wild pace with a list of 60 to 70 cases daily. Also, the first five senior-most judges presided over the constitutional benches. Several challenges such as :
List Of Judgements Passed During The Tenure
Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India
Constitution Bench led by CJI UU Lalit, Justice Ravindra Bhat, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Justice Bela Trivedi, and Justice JB Pardiwala has upheld the 103rd Constitutional Amendment in education and public employment. CJI UU Lalit has concurred with the dissenting opinion of Justice Ravindra Bhat. Justice Ravindra Bhat has struck down the whole amendment as unconstitutional.
Gyanendra Kumar Singh and Ors vs Bihar Legislative Assembly Patna And Ors
In the said case the issue was pertaining to the power of the speaker to deny pension of the disqualified MLAs, the Bench comprising Chief Justice U.U. Lalit, Justice Ravindra Bhat, and Justice J.B. Pardiwala viewed that the Speaker of a Legislative Assembly does not have the power to deny pension and other benefits to a former MLA while deciding on a disqualification plea against him.
All India Transporters Welfare Association & Anr. v Union Of India & Ors
In this case, the Bench comprising Chief Justice U.U. Lalit, Justice Ravindra Bhat, and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, discussed the scope of Section 102 of CrPC (provides that police officers have the power to seize property that is likely to be stolen, or found in a suspicious state) and found that public interest litigation under Article 32 was not the correct remedy for the matter. According to CJI UU Lalit, “If there are individual cases where according to the person there has been non-compliance, the concerned person is at liberty to file for appropriate proceedings. The grievance raised in the petition is not something which must be dealt with under Article 32.”
M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance co. ltd . v. Dnyanraj & Ors
In this case, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice U.U.Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat have upheld the Bombay High Court’s order directing Bajaj Allianz General Insurance to compensate, under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima, Yojana 3,57,287 farmers in the Osmanabad district of Maharashtra for post-harvesting losses caused to Soya bean crop in the Kharif season 2020 on account of heavy rainfall.
Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja v. Kutch District Panchayat
The present case is related to the reinstatement of a watchman who was illegally dismissed 20 years ago in which the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice of India UU Lalit and Justice S Ravindra Bhat observed that there must be no perversity or unreasonableness on the part of the single judge, thereby directing the watchman reinstatement.
Bengal Secretariat Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank and Housing Society Ltd. v. Aloke Kumar
In this case, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising CJI UU Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, and Justice JB Pardiwala held that Part IXB of the Indian Constitution, inserted by the 97th amendment Act, 2011 does not apply to local co-operative societies. Rather, it shall apply only to the multi-State co-operative societies and the societies within the Union territories.
Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura
In this case, the Supreme Court bench CJI U.U Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, and Justice JB Pardiwala observed that a delay in passing the detention order must be reasonable and explained and there should be a “live and proximate link” between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention. An absence of reasonableness will result in the order being vitiated.
Munikrishna @ Krishna vs State By ULsoor PS
In this case, the Supreme Court bench comprising CJI U.U Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia observed that video confession before police officers is hit by Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, rendering the evidence inadmissible in the court of law.
Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti vs State of Uttar Pradesh
In this case, the Supreme Bench comprising CJI UU Lalit, Justices S. Ravindra Bhat, and JB Pardiwala acquitted a man who was sentenced to death for the alleged murder of his wife and his four kids stating that the investigation was perfunctory.
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India
In this case, the Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, Justice S Ravindra Bhat, and Justice Ajay Rastogi was hearing a writ petition filed by the NGO Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) which highlighted the issue of Section 66A IT Act being invoked despite the judgment in Shreya Singhal v. UOI (2015) and directed that no one should be prosecuted under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000, which was struck down as unconstitutional in Shreya Singhal Case.
New Noble Educational Society v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax 1
In the case, the Supreme Court bench comprising CJI UU Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, and Justice P.S. Narasimha held that educational trusts or societies, which seek exemption under Section 10 (23C) of the Income Tax Act, should solely be concerned with education, or education-related activities.
Rishi Malhotra v. Union of India
In this case, the Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice U.U Lalit, Justice Ravindra Bhat, and Justice Bela M.Trivedi observed that an accused being produced in the courtroom was a fundamental part of the criminal justice system, thereby refusing to entertain a Public Interest Litigation seeking directions to prevent undertrial prisoners from being produced in court to ensure the safety of judges, prisoners and others inside the courtroom.
List of Judgements Reserved In the Tenure
As discussed above, CJI U.U Lalit did a commendable job of listing most of the important issues to the constituted constitutional benches. Hence, provided before are a list of cases that have been reversed by constitutional benches after post-hearing.
Striking Down Of A Provision Granting Immunity From Arrest
In the CBI v. Dr. R.R. Kishore, the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices S.K. Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice A. S. Oka, Justice Vikram Nath, and Justice J. K. Maheshwari reserved the judgement on the issue of whether striking a provision that grants immunity from arrest will have a retroactive effect, especially in light of the constitutional rights guaranteed by Article 20.
Conclusion
After a fair reading of the above writeup, it becomes clear that CJI UU Lalit has indeed done justice to his post. He was proactive to list important cases involving questions of law and ensured the working of the Supreme Court in full efficiency. His professionalism is a virtue that can be learned by all. In India, where there are millions of pendency cases, every lower and the higher court must work at the pace witnessed in these two and a half months. Not only did CJI U.U Lalit ensure the efficient functioning of the administration but also sat on different benches as witnessed above to ensure complete justice and transparency.
During the last working day the 49th CJI UU Lalit heading the Ceremonial Bench along with 50th CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice BM Trivedi said:
Arshnit Sandhu has completed her LLM in Corporate and Commercial Law from the National University of Study and Research in Law (NUSRL), Ranchi.
Disclaimer: The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the text belong solely to the author and not to the Jurisedge Academy.
You can access our Recent Legal News Archives and our Blogs on legal updates from around the globe.
For daily legal updates, you may follow us on Instagram and LinkedIn and join our Telegram channel.
[i] Bhavini Mishra, Justice U U Lalit: Only a 74-day tenure for a ‘very good interim Pope’, Business Standards
[ii] Justice U.U Lalit, Supreme Court Observer
Visit- https://www.scobserver.in/judges/justice-u-u-lalit/
[iii] Krishnadas Rajagopal, CJI Lalit sets a frenetic pace in Supreme Court, The Hindu
Visit- https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/cji-lalit-sets-a-frenetic-pace-in-sc/article65985910.ece
Share this:
Related
Notable Judgment of CJI Dr D.Y. Chandrachud
Chief Justice of India is the highest rank of a judicial officer in the Supreme Court. The rank ought to bring huge responsibility on the shoulders of the appointed Chief. read more…
Share this:
Looking at the tenure of CJI NV Ramana
Nuthalapati Venkata Ramana was born on 27th August 1957 in an agrarian family and is the 48th Chief Justice of India. Formerly he was a student activist fighting for civil liberties during. read more…
Share this: