Important Judgments Of Justice Indu Malhotra

Justice Indu Malhotra, the first woman Judge to be elevated directly from the Bar and the seventh woman Judge to be appointed at the Supreme Court, is set to retire on March 13, 2021. Appointed as a Supreme Court Judge on April 27, 2018, Justice Malhotra also holds the distinction of being the second woman to ever be designated a Senior Advocate by the Supreme Court. Prior to becoming a lawyer, Justice Malhotra completed her LL.B in 1982 from Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, Delhi University, and also taught as a Political Science lecturer at Delhi University. She joined the legal profession in 1983 and, in 1988, secured the first position in the Advocate-on-Record examination. Over the three years as a Supreme Court Judge, Justice Malhotra has delivered a series of remarkable judgements, ranging over varied streams of law - from criminal to commercial. She was also a part of the Constitution Bench which rendered some of the most progressive orders such as decriminalization of homosexuality, and struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional. In the landmark case decriminalizing homosexuality, Justice Malhotra famously observed in her separate judgement that "LGBT persons deserve to live a life unshackled from the shadow of being 'unapprehended felons' and that "history owes an apology to the members of this community and their families, for the delay in providing redressal for the ignominy and ostracism that they have suffered through the centuries". In the Sabarimala case, she dissented from the majority which upheld the right of women of all age groups to enter Lord Ayyappa temple, observing that entertaining PILs in religious matters could damage the secular fabric of the country. She also observed in her dissent that it was beyond the scope of judicial review to "rationalize" religious customs. Justice Malhotra has also authored various landmark judgments pertaining to her specialty – Arbitration Law; she authored the third edition of The Law and Practice of Arbitration and Conciliation. From observing that the period of limitation for filing an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would be governed by Article 137 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act, and will begin to run from the date when there is failure to appoint the Arbitrator, to cementing that limitation period for filing 'Section 34' petition commences from date of receipt of signed copy of arbitral award by the parties, Justice Malhotra has indeed left a footprint in this field. During her tenure, Justice Malhotra was also a member of the panel which had inquired into the sexual harassment allegations against the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi. She was appointed to the panel after Justice NV Ramana had recused on account of objection to his inclusion due to his friendship with the former CJI. This In-House Committee, which also comprised of now CJI SA Bobde and Justice Indira Banerjee, consequently gave a clean chit to the former CJI and stated that the report was not liable to be made public. In this piece, LiveLaw chronologically has listed some of the major judgements/orders rendered by a Bench with Justice Malhotra. 1. Inordinate Delay To Complete Investigation May Be Taken As Presumptive Proof Of Prejudice, Particularly When Accused Is In Custody While disposing of an application by the CBI seeking modification of time limit prescribed in an earlier judgement, a Bench of Justices AK Goel and Indu Malhotra observed that "speedy investigation is recognized as a part of a fundamental right of fair procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution" and that "no investigating agency can take unduly long time in completing the investigation". The Bench went on to record that there was a clear need for timelines for completing investigation and for having an in-house oversight mechanism wherein accountability for adhering to laid down timelines could be fixed at different levels in the hierarchy. Further, it was held that "inordinate delay may be taken as presumptive proof of prejudice particularly when accused is in custody so that prosecution does not become persecution". Case Name: Dilawar v. State of Haryana & Anr. Date: 01.05.2018 2. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Will Override Provisions Of Other Enactments Inconsistent With It Upholding a Delhi High Court judgement which held that moratorium under the IBC will apply to the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, a Bench comprising Justices RF Nariman and Indu Malhotra observed that the IBC will override anything inconsistent contained in any other enactment, including the Income Tax Act. "Given Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, it is obvious that the Code will override anything inconsistent contained in any other enactment, including the Income-Tax Act". Case Name: Pr....

Important Judgments Of Justice Indu Malhotra

Radhika Roy

Tags