On May 17, Justice Ajjikutira Somaya Bopanna bid farewell to the Supreme Court, where he had a tenure of almost five years..Born on May 20, 1959, he enrolled with the Bar Council of Karnataka in 1984 and practiced in the Karnataka High Court for 22 years.In 2006, he was appointed as a judge of the Karnataka High Court. In 2018, he took oath as Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court. In April 2019, the Collegium recommended Justice Bopanna for elevation to the Supreme Court. This recommendation was initially stalled as his name was rejected by the Central government. But after the Collegium reiterated his name, he was eventually appointed as an apex court judge on May 24, 2019..During his tenure at the apex court, Justice Bopanna authored around 91 judgments and was part of 518 benches.Here is a look at some of his important rulings..1. Supreme Court dismisses pleas challenging 2016 demonetisationCase Title: Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of IndiaA five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court by a 4:1 majority dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the Central government's 2016 decision to demonetise currency notes of ₹1,000 and ₹500.The majority, which included Justice Bopanna, held that if the demonetisation notification had a nexus with the objectives sought to be achieved, then merely the fact that some citizens suffered would not be a ground to hold the notification to be bad in law.Though she delivered a dissenting verdict in the case, Justice BV Nagarathna said that no relief could be granted in individual matters..2. Additional restrictions cannot be imposed on freedom of speech of ministers, MPs/ MLAs: Supreme CourtCase Title: Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar PradeshA five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that ministers, Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) enjoy freedom of speech in equal measure as other citizens under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.The Bench, which included Justice Bopanna, held that the restrictions on freedom of speech of public functionaries cannot go beyond what is prescribed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution..3. MPs/ MLAs cannot claim immunity from prosecution for taking bribes for speeches/votes in the house: Supreme CourtCase Title: Sita Soren v. Union of IndiaA seven-judge Constitution Bench including Justice Bopanna unanimously ruled that MPs and MLAs cannot claim any immunity from prosecution under Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution when they are accused of taking bribes.The Court overruled its 1998 judgment in the case of PV Narasimha Rao v. State, in which it was held that legislators are immune from being prosecuted for taking bribes to vote a certain way in a legislative house.The Bench explained that immunity is given to legislators under Articles 105 (2) and 194 (2) in respect of anything said or done in Parliament or a legislative assembly only if a two-fold test is satisfied. The two-fold test involves examining whether such action is (1) connected to the collective functioning of the legislative house and (2) the action has a functional relationship "to the discharge of the essential duties of a legislator.".4. Public servant can be held guilty under Prevention of Corruption Act based on circumstantial evidence: Supreme CourtCase Title: Neeraj Dutta vs NCT DelhiA Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, including Justice Bopanna, held that a public servant can be held guilty under the Prevention of Corruption Act based on circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct evidence.However, presumption of fact with regard to demand or acceptance of illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when foundational facts have been proved, the Court clarified..5. ED must supply grounds of arrest to PMLA accused in writing: Supreme CourtCase Title: Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and OthersIn this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) must supply in writing the grounds of arrest to persons accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).The Bench headed by Justice Bopanna also held that mere reading of the grounds of arrest would not be an adequate compliance with the mandate under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 19(1) of the PMLA..6. Including 'unmarried woman' within ambit of Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act for seeking abortionCase Title: X v. The Principal Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department, Delhi NCT Government and AnotherThe Supreme Court held that the provisions of the MTP Act allowing termination of pregnancies beyond 20 weeks and upto 24 weeks cannot be denied to a woman merely because she is unmarried.Thus, even unmarried women who become pregnant from consensual sexual relationships are entitled to terminate pregnancy upto 24 weeks, the Bench held..7. Maternity leave cannot be taken away for having availed child care leave earlier for non-biological kidsCase Title: Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal and OthersThe Court held that a woman's statutory right to avail maternity leave cannot be taken away for the reason that she had availed child care leave earlier for her non-biological kids.The Bench of which Justice Bopanna made it clear that grant of maternity leave is intended to encourage women to join and continue in the workplace..8. Effective implementation of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013Case Title: Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa and OthersIn this case, the Supreme Court took strong exception to the fact that even a decade after the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act of 2013 (POSH Act), there remained serious lapses in its effective enforcement.Justice Bopanna was part of the Bench that underlined that all state functionaries, public authorities, private undertakings, organisations and institutions are duty bound to implement the POSH Act in letter and spirit.The Court also issued the following directions to ensure that there is a robust and effective implementation of the POSH Act..9. Sexual harassment complaints cannot be rejected on 'hyper-technical' grounds; right against sexual harassment part of Article 21Case Title: Union of India v. Murdrika SinghA Bench including Justice Bopanna lamented that there is a rising trend of invalidating proceedings in sexual misconduct cases by resorting to hyper-technical interpretation of service rules.The Court said that the POSH Act may not come to victims of sexual harassment if the appellate mechanisms turn the process into a punishment.It, therefore, urged courts to interpret service rules and laws and governing governing the prevention of sexual harassment at workplace in a manner that renders justice to all..10. 35 years minimum age limit for district judge selection prescribed by High Courts not against Article 233 of ConstitutionCase Title: High Court of Delhi v. Devina SharmaJustice Bopanna was part of a Bench that upheld the minimum age requirement of 35 years for applying for the Delhi Higher Judicial Services Examination. The Court held that the prescription of a minimum age limit for the selection of District Judges is not contrary to the Constitution.The Bench stated that the Constitution only prescribes a minimum eligibility that an advocate should have at least 7 years practice for selection as a district judge and that this does not preclude the stipulation of a minimum age requirement..1. Bail granted to Mohammed ZubairCase Title: Mohammed Zubair v. State of Uttar Pradesh and OthersIn July, Justice Bopanna was part of a Bench that extended the interim bail granted to Mohammed Zubair, co-founder of fact checking website AltNews. Zubair was booked for hurting religious sentiments after he had put out a tweet against Mahant Bajrang Muni, Yati Narsinghanand and Swami Anand Swaroop referring to them as 'hate mongers'.The Bench said that criminal justice system was "relentlessly employed against" the fact-checking journalist and that he was trapped in a "vicious cycle of the criminal process"..2. NCLAT order reinstating Cyrus Mistry as Chairperson of Tata Sons set asideCase Title: Tata Consultancy Services Limited v. Cyrus Investment Private LimitedThe Supreme Court set aside the December 2019 order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) which had reinstated Cyrus Mistry as the Chairperson of Tata Sons Limited.The Bench of which Justice Bopanna was a part answered all the legal questions involved in the dispute in favour of Tata Sons, bringing quietus to the half-decade-old legal battle which started in 2016 with the removal of Mistry as Tata Sons Chairman..3. Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay direction to apex court Secretary General stayedCase Title: In Re: Suo Motu proceedings in WPA No. 10634 of 2023 by the Single Judge of the Calcutta High CourtA Justice Bopanna-led Bench sat late in the evening to stay the order passed by Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay of the Calcutta High Court, who directed the Supreme Court Secretary General to produce the report and official transcript of an interview he had given to a news channel.The Court noted that the order by the High Court was improper and against judicial discipline..4. Bail granted to activist Teesta SetalvadCase Title: Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of GujaratA three-judge Bench of which Justice Bopanna was a part granted bail to activist Teesta Setalvad in the conspiracy case lodged against her for allegedly maligning the State of Gujarat and then Chief Minister Narendra Modi for their handling of the 2002 Gujarat riots..5. Quashing criminal case against TVF for obscene language in web-series College RomanceCase Title: TVF Media Labs Private Limited and Others v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi and AnotherA Justice Bopanna-led bench quashed a criminal case filed against Indian production company The Viral Fever (TVF) over allegations that there was obscene content in its web series, College Romance.The Court stated that no violation of Sections 67 (publishing or transmitting, in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious) and 67A (punishment for publishing material containing sexually explicit act in electronic form) of the Information Technology Act (IT Act) was made out..6. Final plea by Nirbhaya convicts for stay of execution dismissedCase Title: Pawan Gupta v. StateAs the final nail in the Nirbhaya rape case, a three-judge bench of which Justice Bopanna was a part dismissed the final plea filed by the convicts or stay of execution.With all their remedies exhausted, the Nirbhaya convicts were executed on March 20, 2020 at 5:30 AM..7. Response sought from UGC for guidelines to create enabling environment for students belonging to SC/ST communities in institutions of higher educationCase Title: Abeda Salim Tadvi and Another v. Union of IndiaIn July 2023, a Justice Bopanna-led bench sought the UGCs’ response in a PIL filed by the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, for guidelines for creating an enabling environment for students belonging to SC/ST communities in institutions of higher education..8. State of Uttar Pradesh told to comply with procedure and laws while conducting demolitionsCase Title: Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind and Another v. Union of India and OthersIn June 2022, a Justice Bopanna-led bench sought the response of the Uttar Pradesh government in a plea challenging the demolition drive carried out on the houses of those who had allegedly participated in protests against BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma, after she had made remarks against Prophet Muhammad.The Court said that though it cannot stay the demolitions, such demolitions have to happen as per law.
On May 17, Justice Ajjikutira Somaya Bopanna bid farewell to the Supreme Court, where he had a tenure of almost five years..Born on May 20, 1959, he enrolled with the Bar Council of Karnataka in 1984 and practiced in the Karnataka High Court for 22 years.In 2006, he was appointed as a judge of the Karnataka High Court. In 2018, he took oath as Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court. In April 2019, the Collegium recommended Justice Bopanna for elevation to the Supreme Court. This recommendation was initially stalled as his name was rejected by the Central government. But after the Collegium reiterated his name, he was eventually appointed as an apex court judge on May 24, 2019..During his tenure at the apex court, Justice Bopanna authored around 91 judgments and was part of 518 benches.Here is a look at some of his important rulings..1. Supreme Court dismisses pleas challenging 2016 demonetisationCase Title: Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of IndiaA five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court by a 4:1 majority dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the Central government's 2016 decision to demonetise currency notes of ₹1,000 and ₹500.The majority, which included Justice Bopanna, held that if the demonetisation notification had a nexus with the objectives sought to be achieved, then merely the fact that some citizens suffered would not be a ground to hold the notification to be bad in law.Though she delivered a dissenting verdict in the case, Justice BV Nagarathna said that no relief could be granted in individual matters..2. Additional restrictions cannot be imposed on freedom of speech of ministers, MPs/ MLAs: Supreme CourtCase Title: Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar PradeshA five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that ministers, Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) enjoy freedom of speech in equal measure as other citizens under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.The Bench, which included Justice Bopanna, held that the restrictions on freedom of speech of public functionaries cannot go beyond what is prescribed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution..3. MPs/ MLAs cannot claim immunity from prosecution for taking bribes for speeches/votes in the house: Supreme CourtCase Title: Sita Soren v. Union of IndiaA seven-judge Constitution Bench including Justice Bopanna unanimously ruled that MPs and MLAs cannot claim any immunity from prosecution under Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution when they are accused of taking bribes.The Court overruled its 1998 judgment in the case of PV Narasimha Rao v. State, in which it was held that legislators are immune from being prosecuted for taking bribes to vote a certain way in a legislative house.The Bench explained that immunity is given to legislators under Articles 105 (2) and 194 (2) in respect of anything said or done in Parliament or a legislative assembly only if a two-fold test is satisfied. The two-fold test involves examining whether such action is (1) connected to the collective functioning of the legislative house and (2) the action has a functional relationship "to the discharge of the essential duties of a legislator.".4. Public servant can be held guilty under Prevention of Corruption Act based on circumstantial evidence: Supreme CourtCase Title: Neeraj Dutta vs NCT DelhiA Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, including Justice Bopanna, held that a public servant can be held guilty under the Prevention of Corruption Act based on circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct evidence.However, presumption of fact with regard to demand or acceptance of illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when foundational facts have been proved, the Court clarified..5. ED must supply grounds of arrest to PMLA accused in writing: Supreme CourtCase Title: Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and OthersIn this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) must supply in writing the grounds of arrest to persons accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).The Bench headed by Justice Bopanna also held that mere reading of the grounds of arrest would not be an adequate compliance with the mandate under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 19(1) of the PMLA..6. Including 'unmarried woman' within ambit of Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act for seeking abortionCase Title: X v. The Principal Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department, Delhi NCT Government and AnotherThe Supreme Court held that the provisions of the MTP Act allowing termination of pregnancies beyond 20 weeks and upto 24 weeks cannot be denied to a woman merely because she is unmarried.Thus, even unmarried women who become pregnant from consensual sexual relationships are entitled to terminate pregnancy upto 24 weeks, the Bench held..7. Maternity leave cannot be taken away for having availed child care leave earlier for non-biological kidsCase Title: Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal and OthersThe Court held that a woman's statutory right to avail maternity leave cannot be taken away for the reason that she had availed child care leave earlier for her non-biological kids.The Bench of which Justice Bopanna made it clear that grant of maternity leave is intended to encourage women to join and continue in the workplace..8. Effective implementation of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013Case Title: Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa and OthersIn this case, the Supreme Court took strong exception to the fact that even a decade after the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act of 2013 (POSH Act), there remained serious lapses in its effective enforcement.Justice Bopanna was part of the Bench that underlined that all state functionaries, public authorities, private undertakings, organisations and institutions are duty bound to implement the POSH Act in letter and spirit.The Court also issued the following directions to ensure that there is a robust and effective implementation of the POSH Act..9. Sexual harassment complaints cannot be rejected on 'hyper-technical' grounds; right against sexual harassment part of Article 21Case Title: Union of India v. Murdrika SinghA Bench including Justice Bopanna lamented that there is a rising trend of invalidating proceedings in sexual misconduct cases by resorting to hyper-technical interpretation of service rules.The Court said that the POSH Act may not come to victims of sexual harassment if the appellate mechanisms turn the process into a punishment.It, therefore, urged courts to interpret service rules and laws and governing governing the prevention of sexual harassment at workplace in a manner that renders justice to all..10. 35 years minimum age limit for district judge selection prescribed by High Courts not against Article 233 of ConstitutionCase Title: High Court of Delhi v. Devina SharmaJustice Bopanna was part of a Bench that upheld the minimum age requirement of 35 years for applying for the Delhi Higher Judicial Services Examination. The Court held that the prescription of a minimum age limit for the selection of District Judges is not contrary to the Constitution.The Bench stated that the Constitution only prescribes a minimum eligibility that an advocate should have at least 7 years practice for selection as a district judge and that this does not preclude the stipulation of a minimum age requirement..1. Bail granted to Mohammed ZubairCase Title: Mohammed Zubair v. State of Uttar Pradesh and OthersIn July, Justice Bopanna was part of a Bench that extended the interim bail granted to Mohammed Zubair, co-founder of fact checking website AltNews. Zubair was booked for hurting religious sentiments after he had put out a tweet against Mahant Bajrang Muni, Yati Narsinghanand and Swami Anand Swaroop referring to them as 'hate mongers'.The Bench said that criminal justice system was "relentlessly employed against" the fact-checking journalist and that he was trapped in a "vicious cycle of the criminal process"..2. NCLAT order reinstating Cyrus Mistry as Chairperson of Tata Sons set asideCase Title: Tata Consultancy Services Limited v. Cyrus Investment Private LimitedThe Supreme Court set aside the December 2019 order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) which had reinstated Cyrus Mistry as the Chairperson of Tata Sons Limited.The Bench of which Justice Bopanna was a part answered all the legal questions involved in the dispute in favour of Tata Sons, bringing quietus to the half-decade-old legal battle which started in 2016 with the removal of Mistry as Tata Sons Chairman..3. Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay direction to apex court Secretary General stayedCase Title: In Re: Suo Motu proceedings in WPA No. 10634 of 2023 by the Single Judge of the Calcutta High CourtA Justice Bopanna-led Bench sat late in the evening to stay the order passed by Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay of the Calcutta High Court, who directed the Supreme Court Secretary General to produce the report and official transcript of an interview he had given to a news channel.The Court noted that the order by the High Court was improper and against judicial discipline..4. Bail granted to activist Teesta SetalvadCase Title: Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of GujaratA three-judge Bench of which Justice Bopanna was a part granted bail to activist Teesta Setalvad in the conspiracy case lodged against her for allegedly maligning the State of Gujarat and then Chief Minister Narendra Modi for their handling of the 2002 Gujarat riots..5. Quashing criminal case against TVF for obscene language in web-series College RomanceCase Title: TVF Media Labs Private Limited and Others v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi and AnotherA Justice Bopanna-led bench quashed a criminal case filed against Indian production company The Viral Fever (TVF) over allegations that there was obscene content in its web series, College Romance.The Court stated that no violation of Sections 67 (publishing or transmitting, in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious) and 67A (punishment for publishing material containing sexually explicit act in electronic form) of the Information Technology Act (IT Act) was made out..6. Final plea by Nirbhaya convicts for stay of execution dismissedCase Title: Pawan Gupta v. StateAs the final nail in the Nirbhaya rape case, a three-judge bench of which Justice Bopanna was a part dismissed the final plea filed by the convicts or stay of execution.With all their remedies exhausted, the Nirbhaya convicts were executed on March 20, 2020 at 5:30 AM..7. Response sought from UGC for guidelines to create enabling environment for students belonging to SC/ST communities in institutions of higher educationCase Title: Abeda Salim Tadvi and Another v. Union of IndiaIn July 2023, a Justice Bopanna-led bench sought the UGCs’ response in a PIL filed by the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, for guidelines for creating an enabling environment for students belonging to SC/ST communities in institutions of higher education..8. State of Uttar Pradesh told to comply with procedure and laws while conducting demolitionsCase Title: Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind and Another v. Union of India and OthersIn June 2022, a Justice Bopanna-led bench sought the response of the Uttar Pradesh government in a plea challenging the demolition drive carried out on the houses of those who had allegedly participated in protests against BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma, after she had made remarks against Prophet Muhammad.The Court said that though it cannot stay the demolitions, such demolitions have to happen as per law.
