Spotlight On Recent Appointments To The Supreme Court- Justice Pankaj Mithal

A general criticism of the Indian Courts has been that very little is known to the public about the judges being recommended by respective Collegium before their appointment, on merit and suitability. A designated Secretariat ideally should do the job, unfortunately we don’t have such a mechanism. Livelaw has taken an initiative to share relevant information about the appointees and we are starting with the appointments to the Apex Court. The focus is to shed light on some of their significant high court judgments. In this first, of the eight-part series, we highlight the jurisprudential outlook of the eight recently-elevated Supreme Court Judges.In the first part, we scrutinise the judicial contribution of Justice Pankaj Mithal.Background: Justice Pankaj Mithal was born on June 17, 1961 in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. He belongs to a family of lawyers. His father, late Narendra Nath Mithal, was a judge of the Allahabad High Court from 1978 to 1992. He graduated in Commerce from Allahabad University in 1982 and passed LL.B from Meerut College, Meerut affiliated to Choudhary Charan Singh University in 1985. Justice Pankaj Mithal was with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh in 1985. He specialised in Suits, Land acquisition, Rent control, education, labour, constitution and Service matters. He was Standing Counsel for U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Lucknow as well as for the Dr.B.R.Ambedkar University, Agra from 1990 to February 2006. On July 7, 2006, he was elevated as an Additional Judge in the Allahabad High Court, and on July 2, 2008, confirmed as a permanent Judge in the High Court. ElevationOn October 14, 2022, he was transferred as the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court. On February 6, 2023, he took oath as the Judge of the Supreme Court. Justice Mithal will retire from the Supreme Court on June 16, 2026, and will have a tenure of just about three years and four months.HighlightsContempt of courtIn Amit Garg and Others vs Tabassum Gazala and others, decided on July 15, 2015, (Civil Revision Nos 143, 145 and 146 of 2015), a civil suit involving property dispute was pending in the Civil Court of Allahabad. Several interlocutory orders passed in the suit were challenged before the High Court by either of the parties by filing civil revisions, writ petitions, and petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution. Justice Mithal had decided some of them. As the then Chief Justice of the High Court decided that all connected matters were to be placed before Justice Mithal’s bench, they were part-heard by Justice Mithal. Meanwhile, Justice Mithal received a letter by speed post making scandalous allegations against the court, and expressing doubts about the integrity of the court referring to cases of the parties to the suit giving rise to these revisions. Taking a serious view, Justice Mithal found that the letter is not only scandalous, but tantamount to interfering with the course of administration of justice and the functioning of the court. It tended to lower and undermine the dignity and authority of the court, and criminal contempt on the face of the court, he said in his order. Therefore, in exercise of powers under Article 215 of the Constitution, he drew proceedings for contempt against the letter-writer, and directed the Court Registry to identify the sender, and place it before the appropriate court dealing with contempt matters, if necessary, with the approval of the Chief Justice.Justice Mithal, however, recused from further hearing the matter, as one of the parties to the litigation did not have faith in the court as expressed in the letter. Right to worship vs public orderIn Radha Swami Satsang Sabha and Others vs Ami Adhar Singh and Ors, decided on September 13, 2010, Justice Mithal, the petitioners sought the court’s permission to pay obeisance and hold satsang of Swamiji Maharaj at Swami Bagh, Agra on specified occasions/dates on the occasion of 150th year of satsang. In 1961, the defendants were perpetually restrained by a decree of permanent nature from causing interference with the Plaintiffs’ exercise of right to worship at the three Samadhs and the enjoyment of the properties in the suit. The defendants and the other trustees were removed from the management of the properties in the suit, and the possession of the properties directed to be handed over to the receiver appointed by the Court. But the litigation continued with the parties challenging the order on different grounds.The Division Bench, in 1977, after examining the variety of religious texts and scriptures of the Radha Swami faith held that the visit to Samadhs is an integral part of the faith, though it may be a matter of honour or privilege for the followers to do so but that would not be a civil right which could be enforced in the court of law. Therefore, the court held that if a right cannot be enforced against the SSG, it cannot also be enforced against the Central Administrative Council who ...

Spotlight On Recent Appointments To The Supreme Court- Justice Pankaj Mithal

V Venkatesan

Tags