With Justice Dipankar Datta’s arrival, the top court’s working strength increased to 28 as opposed to its authorised level of 34.
Supreme Court collegium recommended the name of Justice Dipankar Dutta as the judge of supreme court. Centre released their name by notification in September 2022.
Background
Justice Dipankar Dutta is son of former High court judge of Calcutta late(j) salil kumar dutta and brother-in-law of former supreme court judge, Justice Amitava Roy.
He completed his graduation from University of Calcutta in 1989 and was enrolled as Advocate in 1989.
He served as a Judge of the Calcutta High Court from June, 2006 and was promoted as the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court in April, 2020.
During his tenure in Bombay HC, he passed several judgments, while handling the important assignment of civil and criminal PILs, petitions related to infrastructure projects and the environment, among others.
In the administrative area, his biggest achievement was his efforts for a new HC building in the Bandra Kurla Complex on a 30-acre plot.
Appointment Criteria
Article 124 of Indian Constitution deals with the appointment of judges in the Supreme Court.
Every Supreme Court judge shall be appointed by the President after consultation with the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Court and shall hold office until he attains the age of 65 years.
Eligibility Criteria
Article 124(3) of Indian Constitution states that in order to appoint a judge in Supreme Court, following criteria should be fulfilled:-
- He/She must be a Citizen of India
- He/She should be a judge of a High Court or more than one High Court for Five years
- He/She has experience of 10 years as an advocate of the High Court.
- Or In the opinion of the President, He/She is a distinguished jurist.
Judgements
Mr. Nilesh Navalakha & others vs. Union of India & others
In this case it was held by the justice Dipankar dutta while leading the division bench, that media trial during criminal investigation to be an interference with the administrative justice working and it amounts to ‘Contempt of Court’ under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Justice Datta ordered a preliminary CBI inquiry against then sitting State Home Minister and NCP leader Anil Deshmukh in a bunch of PILs alleging corruption and also the judgement discussed law on the power of court to direct an investigation while following Lalita Kumari and Vishaka guidelines on the police’s duty to register an FIR on the disclosure of a cognisable offence.
Bedridden patients of the State of Maharashtra received home vaccination facilities decided by the bench and the court passed several devasting orders which finally resulted in the state government introducing a mechanism to vaccinate such persons while sitting with Justice GS Kulkarni.
Justice Datta faced one of the most challenging PILs, where he was called upon for the interpretation of Articles 171 and 166 of the Constitution of India regarding the Governor’s discretion to not nominate members to the Legislative Council as recommended by the Council of Ministers of the State of Maharashtra as the Governor had refused to nominate 12 members to the Legislative Council for over a year.
Under Article 361, a court is not empowered to direct the Governor, Justice Datta held it was the Governor’s duty to communicate his reservations within a reasonable time otherwise the statutory intent would be defeated.
In the Sushant Singh Rajput case, he made a decision regarding the importance of ethical reporting, and his bench upheld press freedom by staying Rules 9(1) and 9(3) of the Information Technology (Guidelines For Intermediaries And Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which required digital news media and online publishers to abide by the “Code of Ethics.”
According to the High Court’s initial findings, the rules violated Article 19(1)(a) fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and were incompatible with the Information Technology Act of 2002’s substantive provisions.
In a democratic, dissent is essential. An opinion’s acceptance in a democratic society is strengthened by criticism of that opinion. With the 2021 Rules in place, one would have to think twice before criticising any such individual, even though the writer, editor, or publisher may have valid grounds to do so without using defamation tactics or bringing legal action under any other section of law,” the ruling stated. It is healthy to encourage criticism of everyone who works for the government in order for the country to develop in a planned manner.
Justice Datta recently urged judges in the subordinate judiciary to not make decisions about bail applications while living in fear of reprisals, drawing on the same idea from his own rulings. He stated at a speech that denying bail requests out of fear would be a “travesty and miscarriage of justice.”
“Judges should not be criticised. We have a responsibility to uphold the law, and in doing so, we may criticise the decision but not the judges. District judges shouldn’t have to worry about being attacked if they grant bail “He stated.
After the Supreme Court made sharp criticisms of the Centre for delaying judicial appointments last week, a notification was finally released on December 11 to elevate Justice Dipankar Datta to the position of judge of the nation’s highest court.
Written by: Monika, 6th Semester, RNB Global University, Bikaner.
0 Comments