न्यायाधीश विक्रम नाथ: वकीलों की चौथी पीढ़ी से सर्वोच्च न्यायालय तक का सफर

“A State gains only as much legitimacy as the rights it seeks to protect.”1

Justice Vikram Nath

Justice Vikram Nath was born into a family of lawyers, however, his own journey as a 4th Generation legal professional, started in 1987. Since then, Justice Vikram Nath’s career moved only upwards. An alumnus of Lucknow University, Justice Vikram Nath handled diverse fields of law during his tenure as an Advocate, thereby gaining the legal acumen which eventually reflected in his decisions as a High Court and then Supreme Court Judge.

Career Trajectory: From Advocate to Supreme Court Judge

Born on 24 September 1962, Justice Vikram Nath hails from a family of lawyers with him being the 4th generation in his family to pursue law.2 He graduated in Science in the 19833 and later obtained his law degree from the University of Lucknow in 1986.4 He enrolled as an advocate on 30 March 1987 and practised as an advocate in the Allahabad High Court.5

After 17 years of practise, Justice Vikram Nath was elevated as Additional Judge of the Allahabad High Court on 24 September 2004.6 He was made a Permanent Judge of the Allahabad High Court on 27 February 2006.7

Justice Vikram Nath was recommended for first Chief Justice of new Andhra Pradesh High Court,8 following the bifurcation of a combined High Court for Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. Justice Nath was recommended as Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court on 22 August 2019 by the Supreme Court Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, the then CJI, S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ., and after the recommendation was approved by the Ministry of Law and Justice, he took charge as 26th Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court on 10 September 20199.

*Did You Know? Justice Vikram Nath was the first Chief Justice of a High Court in India to live stream Court proceedings on YouTube.10

Justice Nath was elevated to the Supreme Court on 31 August 2021 and is due to retire on 23 September 202711

Notable Seminar and Lectures

During the 3rd Edition of the Delhi Arbitration Weekend (DAW 2025), Justice Vikram Nath chaired session titled “Arbitration 2.0: Integration of Artificial Intelligence and Other Technologies to Enhance the Efficiency of Arbitration,” explored the transformative potential of emerging technologies in reshaping the arbitration landscape. Justice Nath also emphasised that arbitration, from its inception, was envisioned as a faster, more flexible alternative to traditional litigation. As the legal system evolves, he stressed that arbitration must also adapt, embracing Artificial Intelligence (AI), machine learning, and other technological innovations. also touched upon crucial legal and ethical questions, including data security, transparency in AI usage, and the need for judicial training. He cautioned against over-reliance on AI, citing an ongoing case in California where a party challenged an arbitral award, alleging that the arbitrator used AI to draft parts of the decision.

“I often say that as exciting as AI and technology are, we must remember that justice is at its core, human. It requires what I call a heartbeat. Machines can sift through documents, highlight patterns, and even predict outcomes, but they cannot weigh fairness against experience. They cannot temper strict legal logic with human empathy.”

As part of the London International Disputes Week (LIDW) 2025, a session titled “The Indian Dispute Extravaganza: The Changing Face of Disputes Involving Indian Parties” was held on 4 June 2025. The session focused on the evolving nature of disputes involving Indian parties, with a special emphasis on India’s increasing role in cross-border litigation, insolvency proceedings, and enforcement actions. Delivering the keynote address, Justice Vikram Nath, Judge, Supreme Court of India, offered a comprehensive and nuanced perspective on India’s legal transformation, especially in the dispute resolution landscape, and its interface with global legal systems. He noted the accelerated pace of reform, saying that in recent years, the Indian disputes landscape has seen a leap forward in terms of efficiency, technological adaptation and reorientation towards alternative dispute preservation mechanisms. One of the most notable trends is the increasing turnarounds toward arbitration not merely as a last resort, but as a strategic reference. Justice Nath highlighted the legislative and institutional evolution of arbitration in India, particularly following the 2015, 2019, and 2021 amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). These reforms, he noted, have significantly reduced judicial interference and empowered arbitral institutions.

Addressing a distinguished gathering at the University of Edinburgh School of Law on the ever-evolving nature of the Indian Constitution and its pivotal role in safeguarding individual rights in a democratic setup, Justice Vikram Nath explored the moral and constitutional foundations of individual liberty. He concluded by calling the Indian Constitution: “A beautiful mosaic of individual and social rights. It strives to protect and work in the best interest of its citizens every day so as to create a nation where each individual has ample safeguards.”

In a dialogue on the evolving intersection of law and technology, Justice B.R. Gavai, Chief Justice of India, Justice Vikram Nath, Judge, Supreme Court of India, and Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India, addressed a distinguished gathering at the SOAS University of London. The panel discussion was held under the theme “The Role of Technology in the Indian Legal System”. Justice Vikram Nath provided insights into the judiciary’s continued commitment to technological integration.

On 7 May 2025, a momentous event was held at the Delhi High Court to celebrate the release of the book Narratives off the Bench: A Judge Speaks. This book, a compilation of speeches by Justice N.V. Ramanna, the former Chief Justice of India offers valuable insights into his judicial philosophy and contributions to the legal landscape. The event was organized by Eastern Book Company (EBC) and attracted a distinguished audience, including Justice B.R. Gavai, Chief Justice of India (the then Designate), Justice Suryakant, Judge, Supreme Court and Justice Vikram Nath, Judge, Supreme Court. The event was opened by a speech delivered by Justice Vikram Nath, who expressed his privilege in being part of the book launch and emphasised the significance of the work compiled in the book. Justice Nath began by recalling a personal message he had received from a friend outside the legal profession, which aptly described Justice Ramanna’s persona and his approach to the judiciary. The message praised Justice Ramanna for instilling a “breath of fresh air” in the Indian judiciary and restoring public faith in the system through his sober and principled leadership.

In an extraordinary gathering at the UK Supreme Court, leading jurists from India and the United Kingdom came together for a closed-door roundtable discussion on the pressing theme of “Maintaining Judicial Legitimacy and Public Confidence.” The session was hosted by Gourab Banerji, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India and featured the Chief Justice of India, B.R. Gavai, Lord Leggatt, UK Supreme Court, Justice Vikram Nath, Supreme Court of India, and Baroness Sue Carr, Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales. Justice Vikram Nath, reflecting on his experience as Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court, where he championed live streaming and transparency as essential for public trust: He voiced that he is a strong supporter of live streaming and that the aggressions and misuse are minimal compared to the advantages it provides judges, lawyers, litigants, and the public.

Notable Judgements at Supreme Court

*Did You Know? Justice Vikram Nath is likely to serve as Chief Justice of India for seven months from 10 February 2027 to 24 September 2027.12

In the appeals challenging Karnataka High Court’s judgment and order dated 17 July 2025, whereby it had struck down Rule 6, Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules, 2006 (2006 Rules), which enables a victim of an offence arising out of a violation of human rights, or specified persons acting on the victim’s behalf, to approach the Human Rights Court directly and prescribes the procedure to be followed thereafter, holding the same to be unconstitutional, inconsistent with the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (Human Rights Act), and beyond the State Government’s rule-making power under Section 41, Human Rights Act, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., set aside the impugned judgment and order, holding that Rule 6, 2006 Rules, is valid and intra vires the Human Rights Act. The Human Rights Commission and Human Rights Court constitute two distinct and complementary mechanisms under the Human Rights Act and the Rule 6 merely supplies the procedural machinery for invoking the jurisdiction of a Human Rights Court under Section 30 and does not create a substantive or parallel regime. The Court, further, held that a prior inquiry or recommendation by the National/State Human Rights Commission was not a mandatory condition precedent for approaching a Human Rights Court.

[Sayad Asifulla v. State of Karnataka, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1817]

The present appeal, where both litigants approached the Court expecting vindication, yet “neither of whom has been candid with it”, presents a striking reminder that the machinery of justice cannot be permitted to become a forum for settling personal scores or securing advantage from a controversy of the parties’ own making. While examining the respondent-advocate’s disclosure of confidential communications and recorded conversations of his former client in television interviews, a three-Judge Bench of Vikram Nath*, Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ., held that “an advocate cannot use information received in confidence against his client”, even after the professional relationship has ended. At the same time, the Court refused to enhance the punishment at the appellant’s instance, finding that she too had not approached the Court with complete candour.

[Rehana Khan v. Rizwan Siddhiquee, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1686]

In a significant judgment examining whether the fact that the mother was gainfully employed could, by itself, justify reducing the father’s contribution towards the interim maintenance of their minor daughters, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., held that “wife earns is not, by itself, a reason to halve the father’s liability” as the obligation to maintain the children is shared by both parents, it “cannot be divided by arithmetic alone”. Accordingly, the Court restored the Family Court’s award of ₹30,000 per month to each daughter, emphasising their needs, the father’s earning capacity, and the mother’s substantial contribution towards their daily care and upbringing.

[Sujata Kumari v. Rahul Kumar, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1675]

Section 14 IBC Moratorium Applies Only to Corporate Debtor: Supreme Court

While deciding appeals concerning the effect of a moratorium under Section 14, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) on pending consumer proceedings, a Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., held that the statutory moratorium operates only against the corporate debtor and cannot be extended to promoters, directors, landowners or other respondents unless expressly provided by the statute.

The Court observed that the protective sweep of the moratorium must remain within the 4 walls of the IBC and cannot be enlarged in a manner that stultifies remedies available under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Holding that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) had erroneously declined to proceed against the non-corporate debtor respondents at the interlocutory stage, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the NCDRC to adjudicate the consumer complaint against Respondents 2 to 7 in accordance with law, while clarifying that the proceedings against the corporate debtor would continue to remain governed by the moratorium under Section 14 IBC.

[Tejas J. Shah & Amisha T. Shah v. Mantri Technology Constellations (P) Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1388]

In a batch of criminal appeal arising from a common order granting regular bail to accused persons in a murder case involving an alleged armed mob attack, a Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., set aside the grant of bail to 3 accused, holding that the High Court had erred in enlarging all the respondent-accused on bail without individually adverting to their distinct roles and criminal antecedents. Observing that the offence was of an exceptionally grave nature, involving an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons which culminated in the death of the deceased and injuries to the complainant, the Court held that period of incarceration and delay in trial, though relevant considerations, could not constitute the sole or determinative basis for grant of bail in such circumstances. The Court emphasised that criminal antecedents are a material factor bearing directly on the likelihood of an accused abiding by bail conditions, refraining from repeating offences, or desisting from intimidating witnesses, and therefore must weigh heavily while considering bail. While cancelling the bail granted to Respondents 2, 3 and 5 in view of their active role in the occurrence and multiple antecedents involving serious offences, the Court declined to interfere with the bail granted to Respondent 4, noting the absence of any specific overt act attributed to him and the lack of criminal antecedents on record.

[Rajni v. State of Punjab, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1050]

In a civil appeal arising from a dispute concerning delayed delivery of a residential flat, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and V. Mohana, JJ. held that the existence of an arbitration clause in an agreement does not oust the jurisdiction of consumer fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Court reiterated that consumer remedies are statutory, additional, and independent of other remedies available under law. The Bench further held that once a consumer complaint has been admitted, it cannot be transferred to arbitration or any other forum by virtue of the proviso to Section 12(4), Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Clarifying the scope of the term “consumer”, the Court ruled that an allottee does not lose the right to seek compensation for delayed possession merely because possession of the flat has subsequently been delivered. Consequently, the Court set aside the orders of the consumer fora below and restored the complaint for adjudication on merits.

[T.K.A. Padmanabhan v. Abhiyan Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1160]

In an appeal concerning the regularisation of long-serving daily-wage employees engaged in a sensitive establishment under the Indian Space Research Organisation, a Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., set aside the judgment of the Madras High Court which had upheld the rejection of the appellants’ claim. The Court held that the Gang Labourers (Employment for Sporadic Types of Work) Scheme, 2012 (Gang Labourers Scheme, 2012), framed by the respondents, failed to comply with the binding directions issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation, which had attained finality up to the Supreme Court.

[R. Iyyappan v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 742]

In a criminal appeal concerning suspension of sentence of ex- Jharkhand Minister in disproportionate assets case, a Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order refusing bail. The Court held that where two split charge-sheets arising from the same FIR led to overlapping allegations, and the sentence in a connected case had already been suspended, the appellant was entitled to similar relief.

Emphasizing the period of custody already undergone and the pendency of appeal, the Court directed release of the appellant on bail subject to conditions, while leaving the issue of maintainability of parallel prosecutions to be decided by the High Court.

[Anosh Ekka v. CBI, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 589]

Favouritism Allegations Against Arunachal CM: Supreme Court directs CBI to investigate

In a petition alleging nepotism in the allotment of public works contracts to individuals close to the Arunachal CM, the three-Judge Bench of Vikram Nath*, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria, JJ., held that in view of the lack of records substantiating the transparency in the allotment of tenders/contracts and the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) report, the Central Bureau Of Investigation (CBI) would be the appropriate agency to investigate, without casting a doubt on fairness of the investigation. The Court emphasised that:

“In such circumstances, leaving the matter to be investigated by agencies that function under the administrative control of the State would raise a serious and reasonable apprehension, in the public mind, about institutional independence. The credibility of the process is as important as its eventual outcome.”

[Save Mon Region Federation v. State of A.P., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 526]

In a proceeding arising out of a death reference and connected criminal appeal, a 3-Judge Bench of Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ., while staying the execution of the death sentence, issued comprehensive directions to streamline the process of sentencing in capital punishment cases. The Court expressed serious concern over the failure to consider mitigating and aggravating circumstances at appropriate stages and the lack of effective legal representation, which undermines a balanced and constitutionally compliant sentencing exercise.

[Aman Singh v. State of Bihar, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 720]

While considering writ petition seeking appropriate directions to the Union of India to examine the existing legal framework governing “hate speech” and “rumour mongering”, and to take necessary steps to effectively address and regulate the same by way of a legislation, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., held that the creation of criminal offences and prescription of punishments lie within the legislative domain. The constitutional scheme founded upon the doctrine of separation of powers, does not permit the judiciary to create new offences or expand the contours of criminal liability through judicial directions.

As regards to issues of hate speech and rumour mongering, the Court held that existing framework of substantive criminal law and allied legislations, adequately addresses acts that promote enmity, outrage religious sentiments, or disturb public tranquillity. “The field is, therefore, not unoccupied.”

[Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 741]

While considering the petition highlighting issues related to alleged deaths caused after receiving COVID-19 vaccine and whether lack of uniform policy on regarding compensation for covid vaccine deaths violates the Constitution, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., noted that there is no uniform policy mechanism for redressal of grievance of individuals who suffered adverse effects following vaccination. “This gap cannot be lightly overlooked, particularly when vaccination programmes are undertaken as public health measures under the aegis and authority of the State itself”. Hence, the Court directed the Union of India, to frame a no-fault compensation policy for serious adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination, through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW).

[Rachna Gangu v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 345]

While deliberating over this matter, wherein several employees (petitioners) working at the Gotona Bara Toll Plaza on the Lucknow-Sultanpur Highway, Barabanki, were arrested for allegedly assaulting an advocate (complainant) over refusal to pay toll; the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., grimly noted that members of the bar at Barabanki had indulged into hooliganism against the advocate who had filed the bail application on behalf of the petitioners. Condemning the lawyers’ actions in strict words, the Court deemed it fit release the petitioners on bail upon furnishing personal bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate. The Court further directed transfer of the case to Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi, for all further actions, to ensure that the petitioners get proper legal representation and a fair trial.

[Vishvjeet v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 431]

While deliberating over the matter wherein the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., had to decide whether decree of divorce passed by the Oakland Circuit Court, USA is conclusive and binding on the parties. Upon perusal of the case’s trajectory and facts, the Court held such decree to be inconclusive and unsustainable as valid decree of divorce between the parties herein. The Court reasoned that the Circuit Court had granted the divorce decree on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, which is not a recognised ground under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA); furthermore, appellant (husband) had not voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of a foreign forum. However, since the parties have been separated for 18 years, with no scope of reconciliation, the Court deemed it fit to dissolve their marriage on ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.

[Kishorekumar Mohan Kale v. Kashmira Kale, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 448]

In a civil appeal assailing the quashing of Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal’s order; and direction to consider the case of the respondent for appointment to the post in question, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., held that the appointment of another candidate against the unfilled post after release of the select list cannot be allowed merely on non-joining of a selected candidate, in absence of any enabling provision.

[State of Karnataka v. Santhosh Kumar C., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 458]

In a batch of appeals arising from a common judgment dated 22 February 2023 passed by the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court whereby the Division Bench dismissed a batch of intra-court appeals and connected writ petitions challenging the rejection of the appellants’ claim for regularisation of their services and validity of exclusion contained in Section 3(b), Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, a Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., set aside the impugned judgments and declared that Section 3(b) of the Act, insofar as it excludes employees appointed on an “academic arrangement basis” from consideration for regularisation despite fulfilment of conditions under Section 5 of the Act, was unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

“The State, as a model employer, cannot adopt artificial classifications to deny statutory benefits. Repackaging contractual engagements under a different nomenclature, while denying regularization, violates the equality mandate under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.”

[Abhishek Sharma v. State (UT of J&K), 2026 SCC OnLine SC 342]

While considering this appeal revolving around a criminal case arising from a marital dispute, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., upon perusing the FIR filed against the in-laws, noted that the lone allegation that stood separately against the father/mother-in-law (appellants) vis-a-vis allegations levelled against sister-in-law, was that the appellants would quarrel with the estranged daughter-in-law (complainant). The Court pointed out that quarrelling does not constitute a criminal offence and cannot by itself, sustain cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 498-A and 34, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (Dowry Act).

[Sushil Kumar Purbey v. State of Patna, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 338]

In the former Additional Advocate General and Family Court Judge divorce case, the bench of Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. has enhanced permanent alimony from ₹30 lakh to ₹50 lakh, to be paid to the wife within three months, holding that the husband, being a judicial officer holding a responsible public position, owed a heightened duty of fair, adequate, and dignified financial security for his wife and daughter.

[Sonia Virk v. Rohit Vats, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2714]

In a special leave petition filed against the judgment and order passed by Calcutta High Court, the division bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. stayed the effect and operation of the following:

-

Order dated 21 August 2025: Passed by the Calcutta High Court, which held that notice to UBS Switzerland AG, a foreign entity, via diplomatic channels under Section 105 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) in a Criminal Revision Petition is not mandatory.

-

Revision Petition Judgment dated 24 September 2025: Passed by the Sessions Court, Alipore, proceeding to adjudicate the said Revision Petition ex parte against a foreign entity, despite a substantive challenge pending through an SLP filed before the Supreme Court.

[UBS Switzerland v. State of W.B., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2274]

While considering this appeal wherein the Court had to answer whether by virtue of Section 103, Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002, the subject cooperative society, though originally registered under the statute enacted by the State, stands transformed into a multi-State cooperative society on account of the State reorganization; the Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., held that Section 103 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 does not, by itself, confer an automatic or deemed status of a multi-State cooperative society upon every society registered under a State Cooperative Societies Act merely because the parent State has undergone reorganisation.

[State of U.P. v. Milkiyat Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2802]

While considering this petition filed by Surendra Koli, whose conviction in Rimpa Haldar case was affirmed by the Supreme Court whilst his acquittal in 12 companion prosecutions connected to Nithari Killings was upheld; the 3-Judge Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJI, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath*, JJ., allowed the curative petition and acquitted Surendra Koli of the charges under Sections 302, 364, 376 and 201 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), thereby allowing him to go free in the 13th criminal case related to the horrific Nithari Killings.

The Court stated that to allow a conviction to stand on evidentiary basis that Supreme Court itself has since rejected as involuntary or inadmissible in the very same factual matrix, offends Article 21 of the Constitution. It also violates Article 14 of the Constitution, since like cases must be treated alike. Arbitrary disparity in outcomes on an identical record is inimical to equality before the law. “The curative jurisdiction exists to prevent precisely such anomalies from hardening into precedent”.

[Surendra Koli v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2384]

While considering this appeal wherein a senior citizen (appellant) was aggrieved by Bombay High Court’s decision to set aside the eviction order passed against his eldest son by the Maintenance Tribunal (the Tribunal), the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., reiterated that the Tribunal is well within its powers to order eviction of a child or a relative from the property of a senior citizen, when there is a breach of the obligation to maintain the senior citizen.

[Kamalkant Mishra v. Additional Collector, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2077]

While considering this petition challenging the decision of Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision declaring S. 163-A, H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 (1954 Act) as unconstitutional, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., directed status quo with regard to the suit property until further orders.

[Trilochan Singh v. State of H.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2251]

The Divion Bench of Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ served a powerful reminder to the Courts of the core duty of respecting precedents and maintaining judicial discipline and observed that a judgment that attempts to resist binding authority undermines the unity of law, burdens litigants with avoidable expense and delay, and invites the perception that outcomes depend on the identity of the judge.

“In a constitutional judiciary, it is the law, as declared, that brings the conversation to a close. We restate the simple duty of Courts: apply precedent as it stands and give effect to appellate directions as they are framed. In that discipline lies the confidence of litigants and the credibility of courts.”

[Rohan Vijay Nahar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2366]

The present appeal was filed by the appellant-complainant against the order dated 12 March 2024, passed by the Patna High Court, whereby Respondents 2 and 3-accused persons were granted anticipatory bail, who had allegedly got the appellant’s wife murdered with the aid of contract killers. The Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., after noting the appellant’s assertion that the respondents used to run a racket of granting loans at higher interest rates and later extorted the said money, opined that the High Court did not appreciate the gravity of accusations and granted them anticipatory bail in such a heinous offence. Thus, the impugned order was set aside. Further, the Court observed that for entertaining anticipatory bail applications, the concurrent jurisdiction was provided both to the High Court and the Sessions Court, but the High Court should always encourage exhausting an alternative/concurrent remedy before directly interfering itself.

“A balance has to be struck to protect individual liberty of accused and to secure an environment that is free from any fear in the hearts of victims of the alleged perpetrators. Although grant of bail is a discretionary exercise, the courts must be cautious to exercise the discretion judiciously.”

[Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2108]

In a significant decision, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., while considering this petition seeking directions for the States and Union Territories (Respondents) to frame and notify rules under Section 6, Anand Marriage Act, 1909 (as amended in 2012) to facilitate registration of marriages solemnised by the Sikh rite commonly known as Anand Karaj, laid down the general directions for the States and Union Territories.

“In a secular republic, the State must not turn a citizen’s faith into either a privilege or a handicap. When the law recognises Anand Karaj as a valid form of marriage yet leaves no machinery to register it, the promise is only half kept”.

[Amanjot Singh Chadha v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2017]

While considering this matter seeking to revisit the principles governing the determination of seniority within the cadre of statewide Higher Judicial Services (HJS), the 5-Judge Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJI, Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K. Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., stated that the Court intends to lay down general and mandatory guidelines which shall, henceforth, be incorporated into the respective statutory service rules governing the determination of inter se seniority among officers appointed from different sources to the Higher Judicial Services.

The Court thus invoked the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and issued the following directions vis-a-vis determination and entitlement of seniority:

-

The seniority of officers within the HJS shall be determined through an annual 4-point roster, filled by all officers appointed in the particular year in the repeating sequence of 2 Regular Promotees; 1 Limited Departmental Competitive Examinations, and 1 Direct Recruitment.

-

Only if the recruitment process is completed within the year after which it was initiated and no other appointments, from any of the three sources, have already taken place in respect of the recruitment initiated for that subsequent year, shall the officers belatedly so appointed be entitled to seniority as per the roster of the year in which recruitment was initiated.

-

If the recruitment process is not initiated for vacancies arising in a given year in the same year, the candidate filling such vacancy, in subsequent recruitment, shall be granted seniority within the annual roster of the year in which the recruitment process is finally concluded and appointment is made.

-

That, after the recruitment of DRs and LDCEs is complete for a particular year, the positions falling in their quota that remain unfilled due to lack of suitable candidates shall be filled through RPs, subject to such RPs being placed only on subsequent RP positions in the annual roster; and the vacancies in the subsequent year shall be computed so as to apply the proportion of 50:25:25 to the entire cadre.

-

The statutory rules governing the HJS in the respective States, in consultation with the High Courts, shall prescribe the exact modalities of the Annual Roster and how the directions of this judgement shall be implemented.

The Court clarified that the directions issued herein shall not be construed as an avenue to reopen or unsettle inter se seniorities that have already been determined between officers appointed from the different sources of recruitment.

[All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2500]

While considering this Presidential Reference under Article 143(1) of the Constitution relating to interpretation of powers of the Governor under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution for opinion of the Supreme Court; the Constitution Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJI, Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ., opined that:

-

The Governor has 3 constitutional options before him, under Article 200, namely — to assent, reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President, or withhold assent and return the Bill to the Legislature with comments. The first proviso to Article 200 is bound to the substantive part of the provision, and restricts the existing options, rather than offering a fourth option. Pertinently, the third option — to withhold assent and return with comments — is only available to the Governor when it is not a Money Bill.

-

The Governor enjoys discretion in choosing from these three constitutional options and is not bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, while exercising his function under Article 200.

-

The discharge of the Governor’s function under Article 200, is not justiciable. The Court cannot enter into a merits review of the decision so taken. However, in glaring circumstances of inaction that is prolonged, unexplained, and indefinite — the Court can issue a limited mandamus for the Governor to discharge his function under Article 200 within a reasonable time period, without making any observations on the merits of the exercise of his discretion.

-

Article 361 of the Constitution is an absolute bar on judicial review in relation to personally subjecting the Governor to judicial proceedings. However, it cannot be relied upon to negate the limited scope of judicial review that Supreme Court is empowered to exercise in situations of prolonged inaction by the Governor under Article 200. It is clarified that while the Governor continues to enjoy personal immunity, the constitutional office of the Governor is subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

-

In the absence of constitutionally prescribed time limits, and the manner of exercise of power by the Governor, it would not be appropriate for Supreme Court to judicially prescribe timelines for the exercise of powers under Article 200.

-

The President’s assent under Article 201 too, is not justiciable.

-

The Court clarified that the President, too, cannot be bound by judicially prescribed timelines in the discharge of functions under Article 201.

-

The President is not required to seek advice of the Court by way of reference under Article 143, every time a Governor reserves a Bill for the President’s assent. The subjective satisfaction of the President is sufficient. If there is a lack of clarity, or the President so requires advice of this Court on a Bill, it may be referred under Article 143, as it has been done on numerous previous occasions.

-

The decisions of the Governor and President under Articles 200 and 201 respectively, are not justiciable at a stage anterior into the law coming into force. It is impermissible for the Courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a Bill, in any manner, before it becomes law. Pertinently, discharge of its role under Article 143, does not constitute ‘judicial adjudication’.

-

The exercise of constitutional powers and the orders of the President/Governor cannot be substituted in any manner under Article 142, and the Court clarified that the Constitution, specifically Article 142 even, does not allow for the concept of ‘deemed assent’ of Bills.

-

There is no question of a law made by the State Legislature coming into force without assent of the Governor under Article 200. The Governor’s legislative role under Article 200 cannot be supplanted by another constitutional authority.

-

The power under Article 142 is overly broad, and not possible to answer in a definitive manner.

[Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India, In Re, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2501]

Capture, Vaccinate, Release: Supreme Court modifies stray dog order; Bans street feeding

In a suo motu case concerning stray dogs, that was initially heard by a 2-Judge Bench on 11 August 2025, and later placed before a 3-Judge Bench, the bench of Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria, JJ modified the directions issued by the 2-judge bench and observed that that “the direction given in the order dated 11-08-2025, prohibiting the release of the treated and vaccinated dogs seems to be too harsh”.

The previous Bench, comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, had issued directions for the removal of stray dogs in the Delhi National Capital Region (NCR) to shelter homes. The case was then referred to a Three-Judge Bench. The Bench reserved its judgment on 14 August 2025, which was pronounced on 22 August 2025. The Court noted that, in the intervening period, several interlocutory applications for intervention had been filed, purportedly by individuals and organizations working for the welfare of stray dogs, seeking a stay on the directions contained in the order dated 11 August 2025. The Court observed that the issue involved in these petitions centered around the right of stray dogs to live on the streets, as opposed to the safety and security of citizens, particularly children and the elderly, from these very stray dogs, many of whom were suspected to be infected with a communicable disease, namely rabies. It was indisputable that human beings bitten by rabid dogs suffered indescribably, and often, the infection proved to be fatal.

[City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price, In re, (2025) 9 SCC 1]

Whether Art. 32 of the Constitution empowers reconsideration of death sentence that has attained finality? Supreme Court answers

While considering this writ petition challenging the imposition of death sentence on the convict and seeking its reconsideration in the light of subsequent legislative and judicial developments, particularly with reference to the guidelines laid down in Manoj v. State of M.P., (2023) 2 SCC 353, the 3 Judge Bench of Vikram Nath*, Sanjay Karol** and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., held that Article 32 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court in cases related to capital punishment, to reopen the sentencing stage where the accused has been condemned to death penalty to ensure that the guidelines mandated in Manoj (supra) were followed.

“This corrective power is invoked precisely to compel rigorous application of the Manoj (supra) safeguards in such cases, thereby ensuring that the condemned person is not deprived of the fundamental rights to equal treatment, individualized sentencing, and fair procedure that Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution secure to every person”.

Vikram Nath, J., however cautioned that Article 32 of the is the bedrock of constitutional remedies, but its exceptional scope cannot be permitted to become a routine pathway for reopening concluded matters.

[Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1823]

Read why SC refused bail to retired IAS Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma in illegal land allotment case

In a criminal appeal against the Gujarat High Court’s decision, whereby, the retired Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer/ accused person’s criminal revision application against the Trial Court’s decision rejecting his discharge application for offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’), the Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. held that the offence alleged against him constituted a ‘continuing offence’ under the PMLA and the quantum of proceeds of crime involved exceeded the statutory threshold and required proper investigation and judicial scrutiny. Hence, the Court refused to interfere with the impugned decision opining that the present case involved grave allegations of financial misconduct, misuse of position, and involvement in transactions constituting money laundering.

[Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. Enforcement Directorate, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 560]

While considering this matter where the Union of India challenged Karnataka High Court’s verdict in partly allowing a criminal appeal thereby granting bail to the Respondent and denying bail to another accused for offences under Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Arms Act and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA); the Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ., upheld the High Court’s decision. On the question of grant of bail to the Respondent, the Court took note that the High Court had observed that Respondent was attending meetings of an organisation named AL-Hind, which was not a banned organisation under the UAPA. Therefore, to say that the Respondent was attending meetings of the said organisation, AL-Hind and others would not amount to any prima facie offence.

[Union of India v. Saleem Khan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1754]

While addressing the issue concerning denial of rights to persons engaged as ad-hoc/daily wage employees in public institutions, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., said that State (Union and State Governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. Taking note of the Appellants, who were hired as daily wagers by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission between 1989 and 1992, and whose nature of service was found to be perennial, the Court thus issued elaborate directions to grant them the relief of fully regularising their posts and financial benefits. The Court emphasised that State cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions and pointed out that the long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection.

[Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735]

In an appeal challenging the judgment dated 5 September 2023, whereby the appellant’s challenge to his conviction under Section 376-AB IPC and Section 6, POCSO Act was dismissed, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., stated that the constitutional bar against retrospective imposition of a harsher penalty under Article 20(1) of Constitution was clear and absolute. The Court stated that the sentence of “imprisonment for life, meaning remainder of natural life”, as per the amended provision under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 2019, did not exist in the statutory framework on the date of the incident. Accordingly, the Court upheld the appellant’s conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and modified the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for life, as understood under the unamended statute, and set aside the sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life.

[Satauram Mandavi v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1516]

While considering an appeal wherein a woman challenged the quantum of permanent alimony of Rs. 20,000 fixed by Calcutta High Court; the Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., modified the impugned judgment and determined that a permanent alimony of Rs. 50,000 per month would be just, fair and reasonable to ensure financial stability for the woman. The Court opined that the woman, who remained unmarried and is living independently, was entitled to a level of maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage, and which reasonably secures her future. Furthermore, the inflationary cost of living and her continued reliance on maintenance as the sole means of financial support necessitated a reassessment.

[Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1259]

In an appeal filed by the father of the deceased against the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which had set aside an order of the Additional Sessions Judge (‘Trial Court’) summoning the accused to face trial under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC, a Division Bench comprising of Vikram Nath* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. held that, in view of the purpose and scope of Section 319 CrPC, there was no infirmity in the Trial Court’s decision to summon accused 2. The Court observed that not summoning him would have risked a truncated trial and a potential miscarriage of justice. It further held that the High Court, by placing unproven defence documents above sworn testimony, had adopted an approach, inconsistent with both the statutory mandate of Section 319 CrPC and the broader context of a case involving a vulnerable victim. This intervention, the Court noted, effectively prevented the prosecution from testing the alibi and curtailed the Trial Court’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the High Court’s judgment was set aside. The Trial Court’s order summoning accused 2 to stand trial under Section 306 IPC was restored. The accused was directed to appear before the Trial Court within four weeks and comply with all further directions issued by the court.

[Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1029]

In an appeal filed against the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court, which had upheld the Family Court’s decision for dissolution of marriage under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a Three-Judge Bench comprising Vikram Nath*, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., held that the marriage between the parties had completely and irrevocably broken down. The Court noted that multiple attempts at reconciliation through mediation had failed and that neither party had demonstrated any willingness or inclination to restore the marital relationship. The parties had lived separately for over a decade, with no existing marital ties. In its considered view, continuation of such a marriage would have only perpetuated hardship and served no meaningful purpose. Invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice, the Court found this to be a fit case for dissolving the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. Accordingly, it directed that the wife would be entitled to visitation rights with her daughter on two days each month.

[Ramanuj Kumar v. Priyanka, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 867]

While considering the instant appeals concerning the imposition of restrictions and conditions on the exercise of open access for captive power plants and other large consumers of electricity via Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Open Access) Regulations, 2016 framed by the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission in the exercise of its powers under Section 42 read with Section 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003; the Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ., held that statutory scheme under the Electricity Act mandates that regulations framed by State Commissions must serve the larger public interest. It was held that Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (RERC) derives its authority from the Act of 2003, which vests in it the power to frame regulations governing open access, scheduling, and penalties. The requirement for scheduling, imposition of penalties, and limits on drawal are not arbitrary but are measures falling within the regulatory ambit of the Commission to ensure grid stability and fair competition. The Electricity Act envisions a structured and fair mechanism for open access while ensuring that market participants do not engage in practices detrimental to the larger consumer base.

[Ramayana Ispat (P) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, (2025) 8SCC 747]

While considering the instant appeal against the final judgment and order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), wherein 27 penalties were imposed on the appellant for failing to deliver possession of residential units to homebuyers as per the agreed timeline; the Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ., had to consider whether execution proceedings under Section 27, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, can also be stayed during an interim moratorium under Section 96 IBC. The Court held that penalties imposed by the NCDRC are regulatory in nature and do not constitute “debt” under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The moratorium under Section 96 IBC does not extend to regulatory penalties imposed for non-compliance with consumer protection laws.

[Saranga Anilkumar Aggarwal v. Bhavesh Dhirajlal Sheth, (2025) 4 SCC 629]

While considering the instant appeals the Court had to determine the following issues:

-

Constitutional validity of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2003 (2003 Repeal Act) repealing the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 (KCCA Act), particularly given that the 1976 Act had earlier been upheld by the Supreme Court.

-

Whether, under Section 68(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act), read with Rule 56 of the KMV Rules, the State Transport Authority (STA) and Regional Transport Authorities (RTAs) can lawfully delegate the power to grant contract carriage permits (and related permits) to the Secretary, or whether such power must remain with the multi-member authorities due to its quasi-judicial character.

The Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ., upheld the constitutional validity of the 2003 Repeal Act. The Court further held that STA possesses the power to delegate its functions under Section 68(5), MV Act, as expressly provided by the statute and further clarified by Rule 56(1)(d), KMV Rules.

[S.R.S. Travels v. Karnataka SRTC, (2025) 3 SCC 491]

In a civil appeal by the appellant-wife against Madras High Court’s decision, wherein the respondent—husband’s appeal was allowed, and two Judgments of the Trial Courts were set aside, thereby granting a decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. dismissed the appeal, upholding the decree of divorce, and granted permanent alimony of Rs 50,00,000 separately to wife and for the daughter’s future. Agreeing with the High Court’s decision, the Court reiterated that cruelty, long separation, and irretrievable breakdown of marriage, were established in this case, and thus, provided sufficient justification for dissolving the marriage.

[Amutha v. A.R. Subramanian, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3822]

In a batch of civil appeal and special leave petitions, the seven Judge Constitution Bench comprising of Dr DY Chandrachud, CJI, B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M. Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ., by a majority of 6:1, held that sub-classification of Scheduled Castes among reserved categories is permissible for granting separate quotas for more backwards within the SC categories. Justice Bela M. Trivedi dissented holding that such sub-classification is not permissible.

CJI Dr. DY Chandrachud penned the judgment for himself and Justice Manoj Misra, to which B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Pankaj Mithal, and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. agreed. However, Justice Gavai in his penned judgment held that ‘creamy layer’ principle is also applicable to SCs and STs and that the criteria for exclusion of creamy layer for the purpose of affirmative action could be different from the criteria as applicable to the Other Backward Classes. Justice Gavai’s holding was agreed upon by Justices Vikram Nath, Pankaj Mithal and Satish Chandra Sharma.

[State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1860]

While considering the instant petition filed by People’s Rights and Social Research Centre, a Delhi based NGO seeking intervention vis-a-vis addressing the grave issue of “Silicosis” among workers in various industries across the country; the Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ., directed National Green Tribunal (NGT) to oversee the impact of silicosis prone industries and factories across India and ensure that the Central and State Pollution Control Boards comply with the earlier directions of the Court. The Court also directed the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to oversee the compensation process across the respective States.

[Peoples Rights & Social Research Centre v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1895]

In a review petition against order dated 24 August 2024 in XXX v. State (UT of Andaman & Nicobar Islands, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1062, upholding Calcutta High Court’s decision granting bail to Jitendra Narain, Former Chief Secretary of Andaman and Nicobar Islands and other co-accused persons for offences under Sections 376-D, 228-A, 506 and 120 IPC, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. dismissed the same holding that the impugned order did not suffer from any error warranting reconsideration.

In an appeal challenging the validity of the judgment passed by the Patna High Court, whereby the Division Bench of the Court dismissed both the appeals and refused to interfere with the judgment and passed by the Single Judge, pertaining to the issue of the selection and appointment to the post of City Manager under the Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, the division bench of Vikram Nath* and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, JJ., while upholding the impugned judgment has held that as respondent 1 received 32.14 per cent, above the minimum qualifying marks of 32 per cent, as per the advertisement. Therefore, Bihar Staff Selecton Commision (‘BSSC’) were not right by denying her a place on the merit list.

[Bihar Staff Selection Commission v. Hima Kumari, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1725]

Supreme Court sets aside withdrawal of prosecution of MLA accused of double murder in broad daylight

In a criminal appeal highlighting the alarming trend where cases, particularly those involving influential figures, face significant delays, obstructing the administration of justice, the division bench of Vikram Nath* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. while emphasizing the paramount importance of ensuring progression of the trial without further delay, set aside the withdrawal of prosecution of accused, an MLA, as allowed by the trial court. Further, the Court asked the High Court to ensure that justice is not further delayed or compromised due to political influence or any other extraneous factors.

“The judicial system of our country often finds itself grappling with the pervasive issues of prolonged delay and suspected political influence within the legal proceedings.”

[Shailendra Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1717]

In a batch of 117 petitions, including four contempt petitions filed primarily by the transporters and tour operators under Article 32 of the Constitution of India assailing the legality of different State Governments levying and collecting Authorization Fee/Border Tax in violation of All India Tourist Vehicles (Permit) Rules, 2023 the division bench of Vikram Nath* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. disposed of these petitions without interfering with the demands being raised by the State Governments while giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the jurisdictional High Courts for their reliefs, and said that as the State enactments, rules and regulations are not under challenge, it cannot be said that the demand of Border Tax/Authorization Fee at the borders by the respective State Governments is bad under law.

[Muthyala Sunil Kumar v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1678]

In a civil appeal filed against the judgment and order passed by the Delhi High Court, wherein the Court quashed the Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007 framed by the Chief Information Commissioner (‘CIC’) and held that the CIC has no power to constitute Benches of the Commission, the division bench of Vikram Nath* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. has set aside the impugned Judgment and upheld the CIC’s powers to frame Regulations pertaining to constitution of Benches of the Commission as such powers are within the ambit of Section 12(4), RTI Act.

“Administrative bodies must have the freedom to establish and implement internal procedures and regulations that best suit their unique mandates and operational needs”

[Central Information Commission v. DDA, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1696]

In a writ petition seeking direction to the Election Commission of India (‘ECI’) against hate speeches allegedly given by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Minister Anurag Thakur during the campaigns for Lok Sabha elections, the division bench of Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. has dismissed the writ petition.

In a criminal special leave to appeal by the minor girl’s father against Karnataka High Court’s decision whereby the High Court allowed the criminal appeal and granted bail to Shivamurthy Murugha Sharanaru in the POCSO Act case, the Division Bench comprising of Vikram Nath and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. stayed the impugned order.

[H. Ekanthaiah v. State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 677]

Know why Supreme Court overturned Punjab and Haryana HC decision in IAS Ashok Khemka’s PAR case

In an appeal by State of Haryana challenging order dated 18-03-2019 passed by Punjab and Haryana High Court setting aside the order of Central Administrative Tribunal (‘CAT’), the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. set aside the impugned judgment and directed the Chief Minister of Haryana being the Accepting Authority to decide on Underlying Representation within 60 days.

[State of Haryana v. Ashok Khemka, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 258]

In an appeal filed Madras High Court’s refusal to criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 417, 306 IPC read with Section 4, T.N. Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002 (‘TNPHW Act’), the division bench of Vikram Nath and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. while setting aside the impugned judgment quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused. Further, it said that the accused, by breaking up the relationship with the deceased and by advising her to marry in accordance with the advice of her parents had not intended to abet her suicide. Hence, it held that the offence under Section 306 is not made out.

[Prabhu v. State, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 137]

In an appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Bombay High Court, whereby the appeal was dismissed, thereby confirming the order passed by the District Judge, which confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Nagpur rejecting the change report filed by the appellants, the division bench of Vikram Nath* and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. while setting aside the impugned order and accepting the change report, has directed fresh elections for the new executive committee of the Society by the Charity Commissioner in accordance with law within six months from the receipt of a copy of this Judgment. Further, it held that the proviso to Section 15, Societies Registration Act, 1860 (the Registration Act) would disentitle defaulting members from being given any notice even if their membership was not terminated or ceased.

[Babasaheb Wasade v. Manohar Gangadhar Muddeshwar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 63]

In appeals challenging the correctness of common judgment and order passed by Punjab and Haryana High Court on 1 June 2016 raising the compensation amount to Rs 493 per square yard on date of notification under Section 4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘1894 Act’), the Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. found the annual increase at the rate of 8 per cent just and proper, as compared to 15 per cent increase awarded by the High Court, due to a huge gap of 11 years.

[Central Warehousing Corpn. v. Thakur Dwara Kalan ul-Maruf Baraglan Wala, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1361]

Section 6A of DSPE Act unconstitutional from date of insertion: Supreme Court Constitution Bench

While considering whether declaration made in Subramanian Swamy v. CBI, (2014) 8 SCC 682, regarding unconstitutionality of Section 6-A, Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (‘DSPE Act’) could be applied retrospectively in context of Article 20 of Constitution of India, the Constitution Bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S. Oka, Vikram Nath* and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. held that its decision in Subramanian Swamy declaring Section 6-A, DSPE Act unconstitutional, shall have retrospective effect, to be ineffective from the date of its insertion.

[CBI v. R.R. Kishore, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1146]

In a batch of petitions challenging order passed by Calcutta High Court on 20-02-2023 granting bail to Jitendra Narain, Ex-Chief Secretary of Andaman and Nicobar Islands for offences under Sections 376D, 228A, 506 and 120 IPC and bail granted to two co-accused from the same First Information Report (‘FIR’), the Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ refused to interfere with the impugned order and modified the conditions for grant of bail.

[XXX v. State (UT of Andaman & Nicobar Islands, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1062]

Supreme Court analyses application of Non Est Factum and Misrepresentation

In an appeal assailing correctness of the judgment and order passed by Madras High Court on 21 November 2008 allowing second appeal in N. Krishnasamy Mudaliar v. Ramathal, 2008 SCC OnLine Mad 864, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. explained in detail the rule related to non est factum and misrepresentation in a document.

The Court explained the settled law that “where it is alleged that the document of sale is void, then no cancellation would be necessary and such a document can be ignored under law. Cancellation of a sale deed would be necessary only where it is alleged to be voidable on facts.” The Court explained that the fraudulant misrepresentation in the instant case was not limited to the contents but character of the document. It further pinpointed that through the instant, it was clear that plea of non est factum was well pleaded in clear and strict terms, which the High Court went wrong in recording.

[Ramathal v. K. Rajamani, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1022]

How Ex-RJD MP Prabhunath Singh was Convicted in 1995 Double Murder Case?

“The three main stake holders in a criminal trial, namely the Investigating Officer that is the part of the police of the State of Bihar, the Public Prosecutor, and the Judiciary, have all utterly failed to keep up their respective duties and responsibilities cast upon them.”, this is what the 3-judge bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S. Oka and Vikram Nath,* JJ had to say while reversing the acquittal of ex-RJD MP Prabhunath Singh in a double murder case. The Court went on to convict Prabhunath Singh under Sections 302 and 307, IPC for committing culpable homicide amounting to murder and attempt to murder and directed him to be taken into custody and be produced before the Court on 1 September 2023 to decide the quantum of sentence.

[Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, (2023) 9 SCC 702]

“Prosecution had failed to establish charge”; SC acquits murder convict after 15 years in prison

In an appeal against the judgment and order of Chhattisgarh High Court, whereby the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence to undergo life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5,000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge has been affirmed. the division bench of Vikram Nath* and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. while acquitting the convict, said that it is possible that the deceased was heavily drunk and had fallen on a sharp-edged object because of which he had received the injury. Thus, the prosecution had failed to establish the charge.

The Court opined that once there is no eyewitness of the incident, the prosecution will have to establish a motive for the commission of the crime because in a case of direct evidence, motive may not have a major role. If there is no motive proved and there are direct eyewitnesses, motive may lose its importance, but in the present case due to absence of eyewitness, motive has an important role to play.

[Shatrughan v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 858]

In a civil appeal against dismissal of a challenge by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘NCDRC’) against order holding Indian Railways liable to pay Rs 1 lakh to the passenger whose cash was stolen while travelling by train, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. allowed the appeal and set aside the orders passed by the NCDRC, SCDRC and District Consumer Forum in the instant matter.

The Court, while hearing the instant matter, expressed that “We fail to understand as to how the theft could be said to be in any way a deficiency in service by the Railways.” The Court was of the view that the Railways could not be held responsible if a passenger was not able to protect his belongings.

[Station Superintendent v. Surender Bhola, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 741]

[Beant Singh Assassination Case] Supreme Court refuses to commute death penalty of Balwant Singh

In a Writ Petition seeking directions for commutation of death sentence of the petitioner in 1995 Bomb Blast that led to the assassination of the then Punjab Chief Minister Beant Singh, killed 16 others, and left several persons injured, the Bench of B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath* and Sanjay Karol, JJ. rejected the claim of inordinate delay in disposal of mercy petition for the fact that the same was not submitted by the petitioner himself. The Court pointed towards the pending matters and left it to the Executive to decide on such sensitive matters.

[Balwant Singh v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 555]

By way of a criminal appeal, the appellant challenged the order passed by the Gauhati High Court wherein the appeal was dismissed confirming the judgment passed by the Trial Court convicting the 11 out of 13 accused under Section 147, 148, 447, 323, 302 and 149, IPC sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs 1000 on default of which the petitioner would have to further undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. While exercising its criminal appellate jurisdiction, the 3-judges bench of B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath* and Sanjay Karol, J.J., set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants. Although the death of the deceased was homicidal, but the prosecution was unable to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused appellants making them entitled to the benefit of doubt.

[Pulen Phukan v. State of Assam, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 350]

In a Civil Appeal filed by the suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor Manpasand Beverages Ltd. challenging the correctness of order dated 13 April 2021 passed by National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Ahmedabad Bench rejecting application under Section 12-A IBC for withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, the Division Bench of B.R. Gavai and Vikram Nath*, JJ. set aside the impugned NCLT order, allowed the application under Regulation 30-A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2018 and said that NCLT fell in error while taking a contrary view.

[Abhishek Singh v. Huhtamaki PPL Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 349]

‘Additional Special Road Tax not manifestly unjust’; Supreme Court upholds validity of Section 3A(3) of Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1972

In an appeal against Himachal Pradesh High Court declaring Section 3-A(3), Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1972 as ultra vires the State powers while quashing two other notifications in this regard, the bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S. Oka and Vikram Nath*, JJ. upheld the validity of the said provisions and set aside the High Court’s judgment.

The Court set aside the High Court’s order and held that the validity of Section 3-A(3) of the Act has been wrongly decided as ultra vires by the High Court. The Court clarified that the tax imposed is regulatory in nature and not a penalty. Regarding the notifications quashed by the High Court against lumpsum taxes, the Court relied upon State of T.N. v. M. Krishnappan, (2005) 4 SCC 53, wherein, levy of lumpsum taxes has been upheld by the 3-judge bench.

[State of H.P. v. Goel Bus Service, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 46]

The Division Bench of Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath*, JJ., reversed the impugned judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Trial Court of convicting the appellant for murder on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

Noting that there were many broken links in the chain of evidence and the prosecution could not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Casting a doubt on the prosecution version, the Court remarked,

“The milk which is said to be adulterated with the poison was taken out from the refrigerator, transferred into a pan for boiling, and thereafter given to the deceased. If it actually had organophosphorus in it the smell would have filled up the room. The deceased being a healthy woman aged 45 years would not have consumed it if the pungent smell was coming from the milk. Even the informant did not sense any foul smell from the milk while boiling it.”

[Rajbir Singh v. State of Punjab, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1090]

In an unfortunate incident in 2017, a class II student was found with his throat slit in the bathroom of his school. A class XI student, aged 16 years and 5 months on the date of the incident, was arrested. The Supreme Court was called upon to examine the preliminary assessment made under Section 15, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act). The bench of Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath*, JJ has asked the Central Government and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights and the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights to consider issuing guidelines or directions in this regard which may assist and facilitate the Board in making the preliminary assessment under Section 15 JJ Act.

“A child with average intelligence/IQ will have the intellectual knowledge of the consequences of his actions. But whether or not he is able to control himself or his actions will depend on his level of emotional competence. For example, risky driving may result in an accident. But if emotional competence is not high, the urge for thrill seeking may get the better of his intellectual understanding.”

[Barun Chandra Thakur v. Bholu, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 870]

The Division Court of Vikram Nath* and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ., held that the State’s act of taking the appellants’ property, all being farmers, without compensation, was arbitrary, irrational, and a clear violation of Article 300A of the Constitution. Since the land in question was agricultural, the Court opined that non-payment of adequate compensation would amount to a violation of the right to livelihood; a fundamental right under Article 21.

[Kalyani v. Sulthan Bathery Municipality, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 516]

In case relating to court fees, the bench of Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath*, JJ had the occasion to explains why the legislature had left it open for the plaintiff to value his claim for the six categories of the suit falling under Section 7(iv), Court Fees Act, 1870.

[State of Punjab v. Dev Brat Sharma, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 330]

The 3-Judges Bench comprising of Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, Vikram Nath* and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., set aside the seniority list prepared by the Department of Minor Irrigation, U.P. on finding the list to be in contravention of statutory mandate. The Bench stated,

“The Appointing Authority ought to have prepared a combined merit list based upon the performance or the proficiency on the basis of the marks received in the selection test as prepared by the Commission; otherwise, it would amount to denial of the right of consideration for promotion to a more meritorious candidate as against a candidate having lesser merit.”

[Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai, (2022) 12 SCC 579]

In the case where two different criminal appeals were being heard against two sets of accused, on account of one of them absconding, and decided against two different judgments based upon evidence recorded in separate trials, though for the commission of the same offence, the 3-judge bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath* and BV Nagarathna, has held that the Madras High Court fell into an error while passing a common judgement, based on evidence recorded in only one trial, against two sets of accused persons having been subjected to separate trials.

[AT Mydeen v. Customs Department, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1017]

Bilkis Bano’s rapists walk free: Supreme Court issues notice to Gujarat Government

When on August 15, 2022, her rapists walked out of the prison after serving 15 years’ imprisonment based on Gujarat Government’s remission policy, Bilkis Bano found herself “bereft of words” and “numb”.

The 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, CJ and Ajay Rastogi and Vikram Nath, JJ has issued notice to the Gujarat Government on the release of 11 men convicted for the gangrape of Bilkis Bano during the 2002 Gujarat riots. The Court has also directed that the 11 released men be impleaded as parties in the plea challenging the decision of the Gujarat Government.

[Subhashini Ali v. State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1083]

With a view to bring reform in practices relating to disposal of bail applications arising from the same case, the Division Bench of Ajay Rastogi and Vikram Nath, JJ., held that where more than one bail application has been filed by co-accused of offences arising from self-same FIR, all such applications shall be listed before the same court to avoid disparity.

[Abhyanand Sharma v. State of Bihar, (2022) 10 SCC 819]

FIR for repeated rape cannot be filed just because a long standing relationship is no longer working out; Pre-arrest bail granted

The Division Bench of Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath, JJ has granted pre-arrest bail to a man in a case relating to the rape of the woman he had been in a relationship with for four years. When the relationship between the bail applicant and the complainant started, the complainant was 21 years of age. Taking these factors together, the Court observed,

“…the complainant has willingly been staying with the appellant and had the relationship. Therefore, now if the relationship is not working out, the same cannot be a ground for lodging an FIR for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC.”

[Ansaar Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 886]

While holding that the term “school children” will include college and university as well while interpreting government memo exempting passengers tax in respect of Stage Carriage (buses) owned by educational institution and used for the transportation of children to and from such institutions, the Division Bench of Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath, JJ., remarked,

“It gets perforce reiterated that the broad expression “children”, obviously, refers to the students taking instructions in educational institutions, irrespective of their class or standard or level.”

[State of Haryana v. Daronacharya College of Engineering, (2022) 9 SCC 301]

Notable Judgements at High Court

A Division Bench of Vikram Nath, CJ* and J.B. Pardiwala, J., rejected all the civil applications in a midnight hearing, filed with regard to granting permission for Rath Yatra on the ground that Supreme Court allowed the Yatra in restricted manner by modifying its earlier order.

[Mahant Akhileshwardasji Ramlakhandasji v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 917 ]

Also Read | SC modifies order; Jagannath Puri Rath Yatra to take place in a restricted manner

A Division Bench of Vikram Nath, CJ and J.B. Pardiwala, J.* while addressing certain issues with regard to COVID-19, stated that,

“Healthcare access is the ability to obtain healthcare services such as prevention, diagnosis, treatment and management of diseases, illness, disorders, and other health impacting conditions. For healthcare to be accessible it must be affordable and convenient.”

[Suo Motu v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 836]

A Division Bench of Vikram Nath, CJ* and J.B. Pardiwala, J., held that in view of present times of outbreak of COVID-19, there shall be no Rath Yatra at Ahmedabad and any of the districts in the State of Gujarat.

[Hitesh Kumar Vittalbhai Chavda v. Shri Jagannathji Mandir Trust, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 910]

Compassionate Appointment | “The concept that such daughter-in-law must go back and stay with her parents is abhorrent to our civilized society”: Allahabad HC

The 3- Judge Bench comprising of Ferdino Inacio Rebello, C.J. and Vineet Saran and Vikram Nath, JJ., deliberated upon the question that whether the definition of “family” under the U.P. State Electricity Board Dying in Harness Rules, 1975 would include a daughter-in-law. It was observed that a daughter-in-law on the death of her husband, does not cease to be a part of the family.

“The concept that such daughter-in-law must go back and stay with her parents is abhorrent to our civilized society. Such daughter-in-law must, therefore, have also right to be considered for compassionate appointment as she is part of the family where she is? Married and if staying with her husband’s family. In this context, in our opinion, arbitrariness, as presently existing, can be avoided by including the daughter-in-law in the definition of ‘family’. Otherwise, the definition to that extent, prima facie, would be irrational and arbitrary. The State, therefore, to consider this aspect and take appropriate steps so that a widowed daughter-in-law like a widowed daughter, is also entitled for consideration by way of compassionate appointment, if other criteria is satisfied”.

[U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Urmila Devi, 2011 SCC OnLine All 152]

The Division Bench of Vikram Nath, CJ and Bhargav D. Karia, J., had a dialogue with the Senior most State Law Officers, Advocate General and Government Pleader expressing concern regarding the upsurge of COVID-19 cases in the State and requesting the State to take appropriate measures in order to check and control the rise in COVID-19 cases and its management.

[Suo Motu v. State of Gujarat, 2021 SCC OnLine Guj 2964]

The Division Bench of Vikram Nath, CJ and Ashutosh J. Shastri, J., dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal which was filed aggrieved by the judgment and order passed in Special Civil Application.

The Court stated that order cannot be said to be perverse in any form, as all possible contentions which had been raised have been dealt with by the Single Judge. The Court further mentioned that after construing the relevant provisions, namely Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009 and after analysing the facts in the context of Section 40(c) of the Act, they were in conformity with the view taken by the Single Judge.

[Godhara Sarvajanik Shikshan Mandal v. Dimpleben Bhrupeshkumar Shah, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 1656]

A Division Bench of Vikram Nath, CJ and J.B. Padiwala, J., allowed a petition which was filed praying to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in order to quash and set aside Rule 1 and Rule 2 of the Bar Council of Gujarat (Enrollment) Rules to the extent that they prohibited the admission of a person who was otherwise qualified to be admitted as an advocate, but was either in full or part-time service or employment or was engaged in any trade, business or profession, as an advocate.

[Twinkle Rahul Mangaonkar v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 3541]

A Division Bench of Vikram Nath, CJ and P.B. Pardiwala*, J., while addressing an issue with regard to the live streaming of the Court proceedings held that a committee to work out the modalities for the said purpose has been constituted comprising of two Judges of this Court.

“Right to Know and receive information is one of the facts of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and for which reason the public is entitled to witness the Court proceedings.”

[Pruthvirajsinh Zala v. Gujarat High Court, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 1055 ]

A Division Bench of Vikram Nath*, CJ and Ashutosh J. Shastri, J. addressed a suo motu public interest litigation in view of incident of mass congregation in Delhi.

At least 200 members of the said congregation have been repravelled traveled to the State of Gujarat who may be infected with COVID-19. News reports have further confirmed death of one person in Gujarat out of a total of 8 deaths all over the country who had participated in the congregation at Delhi.

[Suo Motu v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 385]

Re-evaluation of answer sheets with the correct answer key was necessary to maintain the purity of the examination: Allahabad HC

—While deciding petitions pertaining to the same examination conducted by the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission for the position of Lecturers in various subjects in degree/post-graduate colleges in the State of U.P., a Division bench comprising of Vikram Nath and Daya Shankar Tripathi, JJ., held that re-evaluation of answer sheets with the correct answer key was necessary to maintain the purity of the examination and directed the Commission to re-evaluate the answer sheets, declare the results accordingly, and conduct interviews for candidates affected by the re-evaluation.

The Court directed the State Government not to issue appointment letters until the re-evaluation and selection process was completed, emphasizing the Commission’s responsibility in conducting the examination.

[Niraj Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., 2017 SCC OnLine All 4547]

Allahabad HC quashes provisions of UGC Guidelines forbidding the practice of creating department-wise cadres

While deciding a matter related to the recruitment of teachers in Banaras Hindu University (BHU), a central educational institution where the petitioners sought cancellation of the then recruitment drive in the University and demanded a fresh beginning, treating each department as a unit for calculating the number of faculty posts reserved for SCs, STs and OBCs, a Division bench comprising of Vikram Nath* and Daya Shankar Tripathi, JJ., quashed Clauses 6(c) and 8(a)(v) of the guidelines framed by the UGC in 2006, and the letter of the UGC dated 19-02-2008, which forbade the practice of creating department-wise cadres.

[Vivekanand Tiwari v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine All 2729]

Note: The Supreme Court in Vijay Prakash Bharati v. Union of India, (2019) 12 SCC 410, affirmed the above-mentioned judgment.

“Basic feature of the Society along with its primary object had been altered by way of amendments to the Rules”: Allahabad HC observes

A Division bench comprising of D.S.R. Varma and Vikram Nath, JJ., observed that in the present case the basic feature of the Society along with its primary object had been altered by way of amendments to the Rules.

The Court accepted that the Assistant Registrar had the jurisdiction not only to deal with the validity of the convening of the meeting but also to examine the import of the resolution regarding the amendments of the Rules. The Court also agreed with the conclusion that the appellant 2 was not a member of the Society but was holding the office of the Secretary by virtue of being the Principal of the Boys’ High School, Allahabad.

The Court held that all other proceedings were also illegal, and the meetings were in violation of the statutory provisions. The Court held that the meetings itself had not been validly convened as per the Rules of the Society and concluded that the orders passed by the Assistant Registrar and the learned Single Judge do not warrant any interference.

[Allahabad High School Society v. State of U.P., 2011 SCC OnLine All 531]

Note: The Supreme Court in Allahabad High School Society v. State of U.P., (2011) 6 SCC 118, affirmed the above-mentioned judgment.

*Judge who has penned the judgment.

1. Constitution as an evolving document | CJI B.R. Gavai and Justice Vikram Nath addresse University of Edinburgh

2. Supreme Court gets 9 new judges: All you need to know, The Times of India.

3. Justice Vikram Nath, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

4. Justice Vikram Nath, High Court of Gujarat.

5. Justice Vikram Nath, Supreme Court of India.

6. Justice Vikram Nath, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

7. Supra

8. SC Collegium recommends Appointment of Justice Vikram Nath as Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh HC, SCC Blog.

9. Justice Vikram Nath, High Court of Gujarat

10. Justice Vikram Nath, Supreme Court of India.

11. Supra.

12. Next 8 Chief Justices of India, Supreme Court Observer.

Powered by Nyaya 247 News