Justice Dipankar Datta Pays Tribute To Law Clerk Who Passed Away, Dedicates Judgment To Him
Gursimran Kaur Bakshi
29 Sept 2026 11:33 AM IST

Life can be fleeting, and yet we don't recognise its importance in our mundane lives. Today's morning pronouncement in Court 6 of the Supreme Court was unconventional, as the bench delivered its judgment, dedicating it to a young law clerk who recently passed away days short of his 27th birthday.
A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu expressed its deep sorrow over the untimely passing of Ritwik Deswal, who worked as a Law Clerk-cum-Research Associate to Justice Datta's office.
Pronouncing the judgment, Justice Datta said that the heading of the judgment begins with 'in memoriam'.
He said:
"We have started our judgment acknowledging the efforts of someone who is very dear to us. The heading is in memoriam. Human life is fragile and yet in the ordinary course of living we seldom pause to recognise how fleeting it is, and when life finally confronts us with that fragility, the realisation often comes too late. On that note, at the outset, we begin on an unconventional premise. One of our dearest Law Clerk-cum-Research Associates, Ritwik Deswal, left for his heavenly abode four days short of his 27th birthday, which happens to be today.
As we pronounce the judgment which bears the quiet and indelible intent of his final labour, we wish to record our deep appreciation for his valuable assistance rendered by him in the build-up to the preparation of this judgment. His untimely demise has left an excruciatingly deep void in our lives. Even in his final hours, his thoughts remained firmly anchored in the pursuit of truth and service of justice. It is therefore with profound personal sorrow and grief that we dedicate this final collaboration to his memory. His integrity, his enduring commitment to law, his love for academia, and his other great quality of head and heart."
The bench was pronouncing judgment on a petition filed by a person challenging his detention under the National Security Act. The bench found the detention to be illegal, ordered it to be quashed, and imposed Rs 10 lakh costs on the State of Uttar Pradesh.

