Read Time: 13 minutes
47th Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde demited office today. He was sworn in as the Chief Justice on November 18, 2019 and spent a tenure of over 14 months.
Chief Justice SA Bobde was elevated as a Supreme Court Judge on April 12, 2013 and presided over the bench for around 8 years, relatively more than the average period of a Supreme Court Judge.
Born on April 24, 1956, in the Nagpur district of Maharashtra, Chief Justice Bobde obtained his BA and LLB degree from Nagpur University and got enrolled with the Bar Council of Maharashtra in the year 1978.
He is known to have practiced law for a period of 21 years and being designated as a Senior Advocate in the year 1998.
He was elevated to the Bench of the Bombay High Court on March 29, 2000, as an Additional Judge and sworn in as the Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court on October 16, 2012.
With special commitment towards Environment Law and Wildlife Conservation, Chief Justice Bobde has known to have authored judgments on diverse issues, from Human Rights and Constitutional Law to most recent judgment in Indus Biotech on Arbitration and Insolvency Code.
Notable observation made by the Hon’ble Chief Justice, in Association for Protection of Democratic Rights v. State of West Bengal,
“… Conservation and development need not be viewed as binaries, but as complementary strategies that weave into one another. In other words, conservation of nature must be viewed as part of development and not as a factor stultifying development.”
It was also added that,
“Sustainable Development must remain at the heart of any development policy implemented by the State.”
Further, in the landmark judgment of KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, Chief Justice SA Bobde authored his separate concurring opinion, where he said,
“… Privacy is the necessary condition precedent to the enjoyment of any of the guarantees in Part III. As a result, when it is claimed by rights bearers before constitutional courts, a right to privacy may be situated not only in Article 21, but also simultaneously in any of the other guarantees in Part III. In the current state of things, Articles 19(1), 20(3), 25, 28 and 29 are all rights helped up and made meaningful by the exercise of privacy…
Not recognising character of privacy as a fundamental right is likely to erode the very substratum of the personal liberty guaranteed by the Constitution”
He has also been the part of the bench which delivered the Ramjanmabhumi Verdict; M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das and Ors., (2020) 1 SCC 1 and the bench which laid down the seven major questions for review post Sabarimala Judgment; Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association, (2020) 3 SCC 52.
Hon’ble Chief Justice Bobde has often reflected, in his words and actions, the essential element of co-existence between the bench and the bar. It would not be out of context to refer to one of his lordship’s speeches where he said, “All of us I like to think are coparceners of an undivided family. Anything detrimental to one of the coparceners naturally affects the others. But a more important reason for the special one between the Bar & the Bench is the value & beliefs that unite the two. It is the Bar working with the Bench which has enabled the most glorious institution to stand up to the value of Tolerance, Liberty and Dignity.”
Recently, in a courtroom exchange with the Senior Advocate and SCBA President, Mr. Vikas Singh, submitting on consideration of names from the Bar for elevation, Chief Justice affirmatively said that being a part of collegium, he can confidently say that for every appointment or elevation, members at the Bar are given adequate consideration.
In Lok Prahari v. Union of India, Hon’ble Chief Justice Bobde enumerated guidelines for the Appointment of Ad Hoc Judges to the High Courts, on the following counts, namely,
(i) Identification of trigger point for activation of Article 224A;
(ii) Embargo Situation: If recommendations have not been made for more than 20% of the regular vacancies then the trigger for recourse to Article 224A would not arise;
(iii) Pre-recommendation process to consider both quality and quantum of disposal of cases by the desired appointee judge;
(iv) Methodology of Appointment;
(v) Time to complete the process;
(vi) Tenure of Appointment, generally between 2-3 years;
(vii) Number of Appointments;
(viii) Role of ad hoc Judges;
(ix) Emoluments and allowances
Furthermore, in a suo moto writ petition, titled, In Re: To issue certain guidelines regarding inadequacies and deficiencies in criminal trials, the Supreme Court bench of the Hon’ble Chief Justice directed to conduct a preliminary stage hearing right after framing of charges. “In this hearing, the court should consider the total number of witnesses, and classify them as eyewitness, material witness, formal witness (who would be asked to produce documents, etc.) and experts'', the bench said.
Other significant judgments delivered by the Hon’ble Chief Justice includes,
As a Supreme Court Judge, A Division Bench of Justice Nageswara Rao and Justice SA Bobde, while reiterating a women’s bodily autonomy to procreate or abstain from procreating, allowed Medical Termination of Pregnancy of a 24 week foetus. In Meera Santosh Pal v. Union of India, (2017) 3 SCC 462, the bench said, “Women have a right to take all such steps as necessary to preserve her own life against the avoidable danger to it.”
Please Login or Register
