Subscribe
- Latest Legal News
- News
- Dealstreet
- Viewpoint
- Columns
- Interviews
- Law School
- Legal Jobs
- हिंदी
- ಕನ್ನಡ
On May 23, 2025, Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka demitted office as a Supreme Court judge, not just with a ceremonial farewell, but by delivering approximately 11 judgments - a testament to his unwavering dedication to the cause of justice. This, even as his mother passed away two days before.
Born on May 25, 1960, Justice Oka began his legal journey at the Thane District Court in the chamber of his father. He was appointed as an additional judge of the Bombay High Court on August 29, 2003, and became a permanent judge on November 12, 2005. On May 10, 2019, he took oath as Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, and was elevated to the Supreme Court on August 31, 2021.
As the Bar recounted on his last day as a judge, Justice Oka's career was marked by integrity, legal acumen and a steadfast commitment to constitutional values.
Here is a look at the most significant judgments he was part of.
1. Upholding power of States to regulate industrial alcohol under the term ‘Intoxicating Liquor’
Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh v. M/S Lalta Prasad Vasih
In this case, a nine-judge Constitution Bench (by 8:1) held that states have the power to regulate 'denatured spirit or industrial alcohol'.
The majority, of which Justice Oka was also part, held that the term "intoxicating liquor" cannot be interpreted narrowly to include only alcohol which is fit for human consumption. It was held that liquids which contain alcohol which can be used or misused for human consumption can be included within the term "intoxicating liquor".
2. Excommunication among Dawoodi Bohras: Supreme Court reference to nine-judge Sabarimala Bench
Case Title: Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra
In this case, a five-judge Constitution bench referred the question of the validity of the practice of excommunication prevalent among the Dawoodi Bohras, to a nine-judge bench constituted to review the ‘first Sabarimala judgement’.
Justice Oka, who authored the judgment, concluded that the five-judge Bench in Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay (1962) did not adequately balance the right to manage religious affairs against other fundamental rights, particularly the Right to Life.
3. Upholding BCI’s power to conduct AIBE examination
Case Title: Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College and Others
In this case, a five-judge Constitution bench upheld the power of the Bar Council of India (BCI) to require law graduates to qualify for the All-India Bar Examination as an eligibility criterion to practice law in India.
4. Supreme Court’s power to dissolve marriage under Article 142
Case Title: Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan
In this case, a five-judge Constitution Bench unanimously held that it can invoke its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, which is not yet a statutorily recognised ground.
5. No automatic vacation of stay orders of High Courts
Case Title: High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State Of Uttar Pradesh
In this case, a five-judge Constitution bench overturned its 2018 Asian Resurfacing judgment which mandated that interim orders passed by High Courts staying trials in civil and criminal cases will automatically expire after six months from the date of the order, unless expressly extended by the High Courts.
Justice Oka, who authored the judgment, stated that directives mandating automatic expiration of interim orders after a set period cannot be issued by the apex court under Article 142 of the Constitution.
Case Title: CBI v. RR Kishore
In this case, a five-judge Constitution Bench declared that its 2014 judgment, which declared Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946 as unconstitutional, will have retrospective effect. This means that Section 6A is held to not be in force right from the date of its insertion.
7. Scrapping point-based system for Senior Designation
Case Title: Jitendra @ Kalla v. State (Govt) of NCT of Delhi
The Supreme Court held that the 100-point based assessment mechanism for the designation of Senior Advocates, instituted in the Indira Jaising judgments of 2017 and 2023, had failed to achieve its intended objectives over the past seven and a half years.
In a major revisit to the designation process, the judgment authored by Justice Oka called for more representation of lawyers practising in the trial courts.
8. Not Court’s duty to direct media to take down pages
Case Title: Wikimedia Foundation Inc. v. ANI Media Private Limited
The Supreme Court set aside a Delhi High Court order which directed the deletion of a Wikipedia page on defamation proceedings initiated by news agency Asian News International (ANI) against Wikimedia.
The bench presided by Justice Oka reiterated the principle that media reporting about judicial proceedings cannot be curbed lightly. It held that courts as a public institution should always be open to the public, and the issues which are even sub judice can be debated by the public and the press.
9. PMLA accused entitled to receive list of materials not relied by ED
Case Title: Sarla Gupta v. ED
The Supreme Court ruled that those accused of offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) are also entitled to copies of documents that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) does not rely on for investigation or prosecution.
Justice Oka, who authored the judgment, had held that the accused must have knowledge about the unrelied upon documents, so that he can apply at the defence stage for their production.
10. Upholding free speech through art
Case Title: Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat
The Supreme Court quashed an FIR registered by the Gujarat Police against Congress Rajya Sabha MP Imran Pratapgarhi over his Instagram post featuring a video clip with the poem “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno” in the background.
The judgment, authored by Justice Oka, underscored the importance of protecting the freedom of speech and expression and reminded the courts and the police of their duty to uphold the rights of persons expressing unpopular opinions.
The Court noted that the instant case showed that even after 75 years of the existence of our Constitution, the law enforcement machinery of the State is either ignorant about the right to free speech.
11. Permanent alimony and maintenance can be granted even if marriage is void
Case Title: Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur
The Supreme Court ruled that permanent alimony and interim maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 can be granted even when the marriage has been declared void.
12. Informing arrested individual of grounds of arrest is a fundamental right
Case Title: Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana
The Supreme Court has clarified that informing persons' relatives about their arrest does not exempt the police or investigating agency from their legal and constitutional obligation to inform the arrested persons themselves of the grounds for their arrest.
Justice Oka, who authored the judgment, also rejected the State's claim that detailing the information about the arrest in the remand report, arrest memo, and case diary sufficiently complies with the constitutional mandate to furnish grounds of arrest.
13. Role of public prosecutor and legal aid counsel in upholding fundamental rights of accused in trial
Case Title: Ashok v. State of Uttar Pradesh
The Supreme Court issued a slew of directions regarding the role of the public prosecutors and the appointment of legal aid counsel in upholding procedural fairness and the fundamental rights of the accused in criminal trials.
The judgment authored by Justice Oka said that the public prosecutor must assist the trial court in recording the accused's statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, ensuring all incriminating material circumstances are presented to the accused.
While ensuring offenders are punished, the prosecutor must also prevent infirmities in the trial that could prejudice the accused, the Court added.
14. ED cannot arrest accused after special court has taken cognizance of complaint
Case Title: Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement
The judgment authored by Justice Oka made it clear that if the ED wants custody of such an accused, then they will have to apply to the Special Court.
The Court also stated that if the ED wants to conduct a further investigation concerning the same offence, it may arrest a person not shown as an accused in the complaint already filed, provided the requirements of Section 19 are fulfilled.
15. Setting aside High Court judgment asking girls to control their sexual urges
Case Title: In Re: Right to Privacy Of Adolescents
The Supreme Court set aside the Calcutta High Court's judgment and its controversial remark that adolescent girls should control their sexual urges.
The judgment authored by Justice Oka observed that the observations made by the High Court are 'utterly irrelevant' for deciding the controversy and are 'shocking'. It made clear that a judgment of the Court cannot contain the judge's personal opinions on various subjects, and the judge has to decide a case and not preach.
16. Directing UP authorities to pay ₹60 lakh compensation for illegal demolitions
Case Title: Zulfiquar Haider v. State of Uttar Pradesh
The Supreme Court had directed the Prayagraj Development Authority to pay ₹10 lakh each in compensation to six individuals whose houses were illegally demolished, calling the action “inhumane and illegal.”
Justice Oka, who authored the judgment, ruled that the demolition was carried out in violation of due process and the right to shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court recorded its disapproval of the manner in which demolition notices were served, stating that merely affixing them was not sufficient.
17. Deprecating practice of mentioning caste or religion of litigants in judgments
Case Title: State of Rajasthan v. Gautam s/o Mohanlal
The Supreme Court has deprecated the practice followed by certain trial courts and High Courts of mentioning the caste or religion of a party in the cause-title of the judgment.
In this case relating to sexual assault of child, Justice Oka, who authored the judgment, held that whenever a child is subjected to sexual assault, the legal services authorities should ensure that the child is provided with a facility of counselling by a trained child counsellor or child psychologist.
18. Directing prioritisation of criminal appeals of elderly accused
Case Title: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shyamlal
The Supreme Court advised High Courts to give adequate priority to criminal appeals filed by elderly persons who are out on bail.
The judgment authored by Justice Oka noted that generally, the High Courts prioritise appeals where the accused are in prison. However, there should be a balance struck so as to give adequate priority to appeals by elderly persons,especially when a long time has passed since the alleged crime.
19. Constitutional courts cannot direct trial courts to write bail orders in particular manner
Case Title: Ayub Khan v. The State of Rajasthan
The Supreme Court expressed disapproval of the directions issued by the Rajasthan High Court that trial courts should incorporate a tabular chart the criminal antecedents of the accused while deciding bail applications.
20. Directing Delhi High Court to reconsider deferred and rejected applications for senior designations
Case Title: Raman Alias Raman Gandhi v. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi
The Supreme Court directed the Delhi High Court to consider afresh the applications for senior designations which were deferred or rejected in November last year, in accordance with the existing rules (The High Court of Delhi Designations of Senior Advocates Rules 2024).
21. Registry has no authority of its own to delete case from causelist once it is listed
Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anup Singh
The Supreme Court held that the Registry has no authority to delete a case from the cause list once it has been listed, unless there is a specific order from the concerned bench or the Chief Justice of India.
The Bench presided by Justice Oka held this after it noted that the Registry had deleted a case on the ground that the notice of alternative arrangement was not served on the litigant whose Advocate-on-Record had been designated as a Senior Advocate.
22. Pulling up ED for overnight questioning of accused
Case Title: Anil Tuteja v. Union of India
The Supreme Court questioned the manner in which retired IAS Officer Anil Tuteja was interrogated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the alleged liquor scam case in Chhattisgarh.
During the hearing, Justice Oka compared money laundering cases to frivolous cruelty cases, stating that the courts will adopt a similar approach to cases under PMLA as they do for Section 498A IPC misuse cases.
23. Granting bail to PFI member in RSS worker’s murder case
Case Title: Abdul Sathar v. Union of India
The Supreme Court granted bail to Abdul Sathar, then Secretary General of the Kerala unit of Popular Front of India (PFI), in the conspiracy case related to the murder of RSS worker Srinivasan in Palakkad, Kerala.
Justice Oka proceeded to grant bail, observing orally that: “For ideology you cannot put someone in jail. This is the trend we find. It is because they have adopted a particular ideology.”
24. Granting bail to 65-year-old visually disabled accused
Case Title: Radheyshyam Sharma v. State of Rajasthan
The Supreme Court granted bail to a 65-year-old cheating and forgery accused who suffers from 50 percent visual disability and has been in custody for 7 months.
The Bench presided by Justice Oka observed that it is unfortunate that accused persons in such cases are compelled to approach the Supreme Court to seek bail.
25. Granting bail to UAPA accused on the ground of prolonged incarceration
Case Title: Athar Parwez v. Union of India
The Supreme Court granted bail to an accused booked for alleged involvement with the PFI in causing disturbance during the Prime Minister's proposed visit to Patna in 2022.
The Bench presided by Justice Oka reiterated that prolonged incarceration of the accused in draconian statutes like the Unlawful Assemblies (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) would make him eligible for a grant of bail.
26. Can't allow ED to use Section 45 PMLA to jail persons without trial
Case Title: V Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director
The Supreme Court, while granting bail to former Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji, held that higher thresholds for granting bail in stringent penal statutes like the PMLA, UAPA and NDPS Act cannot be a tool to keep an accused incarcerated without trial.
The judgment authored by Justice Oka emphasised the incompatibility of stringent bail provisions with prolonged delays in trial.
27. Bail condition enabling police to track movement of accused cannot be imposed
Case Title: Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau
The Supreme Court held that there cannot be a bail condition that enables the police to constantly track the movements of the accused and virtually peep into the privacy of the accused.
The judgment authored by Justice Oka was examining whether a bail condition requiring an accused to drop a pin on Google Maps for the investigating officer to access his location violates a person's right to privacy.
28. Tree felling and afforestation
Case Title: MC Mehta v. Union of India
From initiating contempt proceedings against Vice Chairman of Delhi Development Authority (DDA) against unauthorised tree felling in Delhi Ridge forest area to calling for tree census and compulsory afforestation, Justice Oka had time and again underscored the Court's constitutional duty to protect the environment.
In cases where afforestation conditions were unmet, such as with Jaypee Infratech and Rail Vikas Nigam Limited, Justice Oka warned of contempt proceedings and potential demolition of constructions, highlighting the Court's seriousness in enforcing environmental compliance.
29. Air pollution and GRAP enforcement
Case Title: MC Mehta v. Union of India
In tackling Delhi's air pollution, the Bench presided by Justice Oka was instrumental in enforcing the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP). He noted the "abject failure" of authorities in implementing pollution control measures, citing violations like unauthorised construction, burning of dried leaves, etc.
To ensure compliance, the Court ordered the continuation of GRAP-IV measures, including halting construction activities. It expressed deep concern over the ineffective enforcement of laws aimed at curbing stubble burning. In October 2024, his bench had criticised the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) for its failure to implement directives to prevent such incidents.
Case Title: In Re Solid Waste Management
Addressing Delhi's waste crisis, the Bench presided by Justice Oka expressed deep concern over the untreated solid waste contributing to pollution and health hazards. He criticised the Delhi government's failure to comply with the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, noting the daily generation of 11,000 metric tonnes of waste, with 3,000 tonnes remaining untreated.
Anadi Tewari is working as a Law Clerk-cum-Research Associate at the Supreme Court of India.