“The first principle in the hierarchy of Courts is consistency and predictability in its orders based on judicial discipline. The salutary importance of this has to be appreciated as otherwise the litigant, the lawyers and the State authorities shall all be left unsure of the correct legal position with different Benches taking different views. Judicial discipline required the learned Single Judge to adhere to the same.”
– Mukesh Kumar Das v. State of Bihar, 2013 SCC OnLine Pat 1039
Early Life and Education
Justice Navin Sinha was born on August 19, 1957 in a Kayastha (Zamindar) family of Lawyers/Administrators to late Benoy Sinha, who superannuated as additional secretary, ministry of power, government of India, and Indu Sinha, a social worker, who was actively associated with the Indian Red Cross Society, Patna.[1]
- Did you know? Justice Sinha is grandson of reputed lawyer and the first advocate general of Bihar, Babu Baldev Sahay.[2]
Justice Sinha did his schooling at St. Xavier’s High School, Patna, and passed out in 1972. He completed his graduation from the Hindu College, Delhi. In 1979, he completed L.L.B from Campus Law Centre, Delhi University.
On July 26, 1979, Justice Sinha enrolled as an Advocate in Bihar Bar Association and started practice in the Patna High Court.
- Did you know? Justice Sinha is maternal grandson of Padma Bhushan the Late Dr Raghunath Saran, a personal physician to the first President of India Dr Rajendra Prasad.[3]
From an Advocate to a Supreme Court Judge
- Did you know? Justice Sinha practised for 23 years at Patna High Court before his elevation as a judge at Patna High Court.
Justice Sinha started his practice in Civil, Constitutional, Labour, Service, Commercial, Company and Criminal matters, in 1979 in Patna High Court. He had marked his presence in many remarkable cases as an advocate. Some of the significant cases represented by him are:
- Indu Bhusan v. State of Bihar, 1983 SCC OnLine Pat 282
- Bhup Narayan Jha v. State of Bihar, 1984 SCC OnLine Pat 347
- Mahendra Narayan Sardar v. State of Bihar, 1994 SCC OnLine Pat 126
- Sudheshwar Nath v. State of Bihar, 1999 SCC OnLine Pat 1022
- Mohd. Mehandi Imam v. State of Bihar, 2001 SCC OnLine Pat 667
- Sumitra Devi v. State of Bihar, 2002 SCC OnLine Pat 1091
- Amrapali Cinema v. State of Bihar, 2003 SCC OnLine Pat 48
- Heera Lal Yadav v. State of Bihar, 2003 SCC OnLine Pat 951
- Durga Hotel Complex v. RBI, 2004 SCC OnLine Pat 100
On February 11, 2004, Justice Sinha was appointed as a permanent judge Patna High Court. In July, 2014 he had sworn in as the judge of Chhattisgarh High Court.
- Did you know? Justice Sinha played a vital role in the High Courts’ computerization, firstly at Patna, later at Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan.[4]
Justice Sinha functioned as the Acting Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court till his elevation on May 14, 2016 as the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court. He was elevated as a Judge at Supreme Court of India on February 17, 2017.
- Did you know? Navin Sinha, as a Judge of the Patna High Court and the Chief Justice of Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan High Courts, has contributed immensely to the legal aid movement with his rich experience.[5]
Notable Judgements at Supreme Court
Pruthviraj Jayantibhai Vanol v. Dinesh Dayabhai Vala, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 493
The Division Bench of Navin Sinha* and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ., reiterated the value of ocular evidence while reversing the acquittal of the accused and held that ocular evidence to be disbelieved only when medical evidence rules out all possibilities of ocular evidence being true.
“Criminal jurisprudence developed in this country recognizes that the eye sight capacity of those who live in rural areas is far better than compared to the town folks. Identification at night between known persons is acknowledged to be possible by voice, silhouette, shadow, and gait also.”
Natarajan v. State of T.N., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 455
In an appeal regarding dowry death case the Division Bench of Navin Sinha and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ., granted acquittal to an old aged couple. While deciding the question whether merely residing in the same house make in-laws accomplice in a dowry death case, the Court opined that the Courts below had failed to consider the evidences available on the standard of “beyond reasonable doubt”.
The Bench stated that, “Conviction of the appellants was not maintainable on a probability in absence of direct evidence. The benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the appellants.”
Naresh Kumar v. Kalawati, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 260
In a 30 year old case, the Division bench of Navin Sinha* and Krishan Murari, JJ., has opined that there cannot be any rigid standard or yardstick for acceptance or rejection of a dying declaration and whether or not it will be admissible in evidence will depend upon the fact of each case and acquitted the husband and sister-in-law as the deceased’s dying declaration fails to “inspire confidence”.
“A dying declaration is admissible in evidence under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It alone can also form the basis for conviction if it has been made voluntarily and inspires confidence. If there are contradictions, variations, creating doubts about its truthfulness, affecting its veracity and credibility or if the dying declaration is suspect, or the accused is able to create a doubt not only with regard to the dying declaration but also with regard to the nature and manner of death, the benefit of doubt shall have to be given to the accused.”
Chintels India Ltd. v. Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 80
The 3-judge bench of RF Nariman*, Navin Sinha and KM Joseph, JJ., has held that an appeal under section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would be maintainable against an order refusing to condone delay in filing an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 to set aside an award.
“Undoubtedly, a limited right of appeal is given under section 37 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. But it is not the province or duty of this Court to further limit such right by excluding appeals which are in fact provided for, given the language of the provision.”
Manish Kumar v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 30
In a 465-pages long judgment, the 3-Judge Bench of RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and K.M. Joseph*, JJ., upheld the validity of several provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2020, albeit with directions given in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
The Court opined that
“There is nothing like a perfect law and as with all human institutions, there are bound to be imperfections. What is significant is however for the court ruling on constitutionality, the law must present a clear departure from constitutional limits.”
Padia Timber Company (P) Ltd. v. Visakhapatnam Port Trust, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1
Deciding the question in hand whether a conditional acceptance of an offer be considered a concluded contract, the Division bench consisting of Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee*, JJ., held that when the acceptor puts in a new condition while accepting the contract already signed by the proposer, the contract is not complete until the proposer accepts that condition.
“It is a cardinal principle of the law of contract that the offer and acceptance of an offer must be absolute. It can give no room for doubt. The offer and acceptance must be based or founded on three components, that is, certainty, commitment and communication.”
Amar Nath Chaubey v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1019
The 3-judge bench of RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari, JJ had IPS Officer Satyarth Anirudh Pankaj as the senior officer, State of Uttar Pradesh to carry out further investigation in the Ram Bihari Chaubey murder case after it found the investigation and closure report submitted by the UP Police to be “extremely casual and perfunctory in nature”. The Court directed that IPS Officer Pankaj will be free to select a team of competent officers of his choice and should do what is needful.
“A fair investigation is, but a necessary concomitant of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and this Court has the bounden obligation to ensure adherence by the police.”
Nirmala Kothari v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 4 SCC 49
Answering the question “What is the extent of care/diligence expected of the employer/insured while employing a driver?”, the Division bench of Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari*, JJ., opined that while hiring a driver the employer is expected to verify if the driver has a driving licence. If the driver produces a licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the employer is not expected to further investigate into the authenticity of the licence unless there is cause to believe otherwise.
The Court further observed that if the employer finds the driver to be competent to drive the vehicle and has satisfied himself that the driver has a driving licence there would be no breach of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) and the insurance company would be liable under the policy.
State of UP v. Sudhir Kumar Singh, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 847
Answering the question “Can the breach of audi alteram partem rule by itself lead to the conclusion that prejudice has been caused?”, the 3-judge bench of RF Nariman*, Navin Sinha and KM Joseph has reiterated the principles of natural justice and held that “Natural justice is a flexible tool in the hands of the judiciary to reach out in fit cases to remedy injustice. The breach of the audi alteram partem rule cannot by itself, without more, lead to the conclusion that prejudice is thereby caused.”
Seelan v. Inspector of Police, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1028
In a 20-year-old case relating to rape of a 6-year-old, the 3-judge bench of RF Nariman*, Navin Sinha and KM Joseph, JJ has dismissed the special leave petition filed by the convict, thereby rejecting the contention that since the petitioner has only one hand, it would be physically impossible to have committed an act of rape. The Court said that there is no such impossibility.
Panther Security Services (P) Ltd. v. Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 981
The Division bench comprising of Navin Sinha* and Surya Kant, JJ., in a case where a company provided trained and efficient security guards to clients, claimed that security guards were the employees of the client, held that merely because the client pays money under a contract to the appellant and in turn the appellant pays the wages of such security guards from such contractual amount received by it, it does not make the client the employer of the security guard nor do the security guards constitute employees of the client.
Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamala, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 676
The Division bench of Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee*, JJ., held that judgment deciding second appeal without formulation of substantial question law not valid. Formulation of substantial question of law is mandatory and the mere reference to the ground mentioned in Memorandum of Second Appeal cannot satisfy the mandate of Section 100 of the CPC.
“If statute confers a limited right of appeal, the Court cannot expand the scope of the appeal.”
Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. CBI, (2020) 9 SCC 636
The 3-judge bench of RFNariman*, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee, JJ., in this case, there was exoneration on merits by CVC, where allegation found to be not sustainable at all and accused held innocent. Criminal prosecution on same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue, on underlying principle of higher standard of proof in criminal cases. No sanction ought to be accorded and no offence under IPC made out. Judgment of courts below, set aside, and accused discharged from offences under IPC.
Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd v. CBI, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1046
The 3-judge bench of RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and KM Joseph, JJ., held that stay by ‘any court’ in criminal/civil proceedings automatically expires within a period of 6 months unless extended for ‘good reasons’
Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 824
The 3-judge bench of RF Nariman*, Navin Sinha and KM Joseph, JJ., has held that the right to default bail is not a mere statutory right under the first proviso to Section 167(2) CrPC, but is part of the procedure established by law under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which is, therefore, a fundamental right granted to an accused person to be released on bail once the conditions of the first proviso to Section 167(2) are fulfilled.
EXL Careers v. Frankfinn Aviation Services (P) Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 621
The 3-judge bench of R F Nariman, Navin Sinha* and Indira Banerjee, JJ has held that if a plaint is returned under Order VII Rule 10 and 10A of CPC, for presentation in the court in which it should have been instituted, the plaint is to be considered as a fresh plaint and the trial is to be conducted de novo.
“In cases dealing with transfer of proceedings from a Court having jurisdiction to another Court, the discretion vested in the Court by Sections 24(2) and 25(3) either to retry the proceedings or proceed from the point at which such proceeding was transferred or withdrawn, is in marked contrast to the scheme under Order VII Rule 10 read with Rule 10-A where no such discretion is given
and the proceeding has to commence de novo.”
Chairman, Board of Trustees Cochin v. Arebee Star Maritime Agencies (P) Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 622
The 3-judge bench of RF Nariman*, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee, JJ., held that the expression “may” in sections 61 and 62 of the Major Ports Trust Act, 1963 cannot be read as “shall”, subject to the caveat that as the “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution, a Port Trust must act reasonably, and attempt to sell the goods within a reasonable period from the date on which it has assumed custody of them.
Benedict Denis Kinny v. Tulip Brian Miranda, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 802
“The Courts are guardians of the rights and liberties of the citizen and they shall fail in their responsibility if they abdicate their solemn duty towards the citizens.”
The Division bench comprising of Ashok Bhushan* and Navin Sinha, JJ was called upon to decide whether the High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of Constitution of India can pass an order interdicting a legal fiction engrafted in a State enactment. The Court held that
“The power under Article 226 of the Constitution overrides any contrary provision in a Statute and the power of the High Court under Article 226 cannot be taken away or abridged by any contrary provision in a Statute.”
International Spirits & Wines Association of India v. State of Haryana, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 183
The 3-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ, Navin Sinha* and KM Joseph** struck down Rule 24(i-eeee) of the Haryana Liquor License Rules 1970 by a 2:1 majority verdict.
Justice Sinha wrote the majority judgment on behalf of himself and the then Chief Justice, Rajan Gogoi. Justice Sinha held that Rule 24(i-eeee), which allowed a single licensee to deal in imported foreign liquor for the entire State, was invalid. The majority agreed that the amendment of the relevant rules, which paved way for the conferment of license to a single licensee, was not authorized by the parent Act.
Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam, (2019) 13 SCC 289
Allowing a criminal appeal and upholding the trial court’s decision convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC, the Division Bench comprising of Rohinton F. Nariman and Navin Sinha*, JJ., observed that mere invocation of the last seen theory, sans the facts and evidence in a case, will not suffice to shift the onus upon the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 unless the prosecution first establishes a prima facie case.
Reiterating the law related to Section 313 CrPC, the Court opined that
“Section 313, Cr.P.C. cannot be seen simply as a part of audi alteram partem. It confers a valuable right upon an accused to establish his innocence and can well be considered beyond a statutory right as a constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, even if it is not to be considered as a piece of substantive evidence, not being on oath under Section 313(2), Cr.P.C.”
Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. V. Union of India, (2019) 4 SCC 17
“The defaulter’s paradise is lost. In its place, the economy‘s rightful position has been regained.”
The Division bench comprising of RF Nariman* and Navin Sinha, JJ., has upheld the validity of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in its entirety as the provisions contained therein pass the constitutional muster.
Noticing that in the working of the Code, the flow of financial resource to the commercial sector in India has increased exponentially as a result of financial debts being repaid, the bench said that
T.N. Pollution Control Board v. Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine SC 221
Refusing to allow reopening of Vedanta’s Sterlite plant in Tamil Nadu’s Tuticorin, which was at the centre of massive protests over pollution concerns, the Division bench comprising of RF Nariman* and Navin Sinha, JJ., however, granted the company liberty to approach the Madras High Court.
Monsanto Technology LLC v. Nuziveedu Seeds, (2019) 3 SCC 381
In the most keenly watched bio-tech patent litigation in India where the Monsanto had approached the Court to set aside a decision of the Delhi High Court, which had declared Monsanto’s patent over Bt. Technology invalid, the Division bench of RF Nariman and Navin Sinha*, JJ., held that the division bench of the Delhi HC had erred in making its decision in a technically complex matter without the benefit of evidence obtained through a trial. Given this, the Court remitted the case back for a decision on the validity of the patent.
Anand Ramachandra Chougule v. Sidarai Laxman Chougala, (2019) 8 SCC 50
Declining to interfere with the decision of the High Court in a case were the accused persons allegedly assaulted deceased leading to homicidal death, the Division Bench of Navin Sinha* and Ashok Bhushan, JJ., found that the prosecution had concealed the fact that the Respondents themselves had filed a FIR in relation to a scuffle which broke out between the deceased and the Respondents and held that
“A fair criminal trial encompasses a fair investigation at the pretrial stage, a fair trial where the prosecution does not conceal anything from the court and discharges its obligations in accordance with the law impartially to facilitate a just and proper decision by the court in the larger interest of justice concluding with a fairness in sentencing also”.
Bhagwat v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 14 SCC 444
Deciding whether the conviction can be upheld when there were multiple conflicting dying declarations, the Division Bench of Navin Sinha* and KM Joseph, JJ., held that the third declaration which implicated the Appellant, was made in the presence of a Special Judicial Magistrate, who also proved the same therefore it can be considered as a corroborative material, ie, supporting other evidence which already pointed to the involvement of the Appellant.
The Bench upheld the conviction. Nevertheless, given that the Appellant had already served 15 years in custody, the Bench directed that he be provided with necessary legal support to seek a remission in his sentence.
Wildlife First v. Ministry of Forest and Environment, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 238
The 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee, JJ., ordered the forced eviction of more than 1,000,000 tribals and other forest-dwelling households from forestlands across 16 states after the government failed to defend the validity of the Forest Rights Act.
The Court directed the Chief Secretaries of all the 16 States to “ensure that where the rejection orders have been passed, eviction will be carried out on or before the next date of hearing. In case the eviction is not carried out, as aforesaid, the matter would be viewed seriously by this Court.”
Mohd. Imran v. State of Maharashtra, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1943
While allowing an appeal filed by a successful judicial services candidate, the 3-Judge Bench comprising of Kurian Joseph, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Navin Sinha*, JJ., opined that, “the consideration and candidature in the present case of the appellant are afflicted by a myopic vision, blurred by the spectacle of moral turpitude, reflecting inadequate appreciation and application of facts.”
Justice Sinha also noted that “An alleged single misadventure or misdemeanor of the present nature, if it can be considered to be so, cannot be sufficient to deny appointment to the Appellant when he has on all other aspects and parameters been found to be fit for appointment”.
Hemudan Nanbha Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1688
A 3-judge bench consisting of Ranjan Gogoi, Navin Sinha* and K.M. Joseph, JJ., held that merely because a rape survivor turns hostile and submits false evidence favouring the rapist, it would not be sufficient to acquit him if there is sufficient evidence to prove his guilt otherwise.
“A criminal trial is but a quest for truth. The nature of inquiry and evidence required will depend on the facts of each case. The presumption of innocence will have to be balanced with the rights of the victim, and above all the societal interest for preservation of the rule of law. Neither the accused nor the victim can be permitted to subvert a criminal trial by stating falsehood and resort to contrivances, so as to make it the theatre of the absurd.”
The Court held that “we find no infirmity in the reasoning of the High Court that, 6 months was a sufficient time and opportunity for the accused to win over the prosecutrix by a settlement through coercion, intimidation, persuasion and undue influence.”
Basavaraj v. State of Maharashtra, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1720
Upholding the order of Bombay High Court whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his father, the A 3-iudge bench comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, Navin Sinha* and K.M. Joseph, JJ., held that “the conduct of the appellant in absconding till he was arrested, and abstaining during the funeral rites of his father, was completely contrary to normal human conduct, and is therefore considered an additional incriminating factor against the appellant.”
Anjan Kumar Sharma v. State of Assam, (2017) 14 SCC 359
The Division bench of L.Nageswara Rao* and Navin Sinha, JJ., held that in the absence of conclusive and consistent proof of circumstantial chain of evidence which lead to the only “hypothesis of guilt” against the accused then, only circumstance of last seen cannot be made basis of conviction.
Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, (2017) 9 SCC 766
The 3-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi*, RF Nariman and Navin Sinha, JJ., laid down elaborate guidelines for the system of designation of Senior Advocates in the Supreme Court as well as all the High Courts of India.
The Court opined that “The sole yardstick by which we propose to introduce a set of guidelines to govern the matter is the need for maximum objectivity in the process so as to ensure that it is only and only the most deserving and the very best who would be bestowed the honour and dignity. The credentials of every advocate who seeks to be designated as a Senior Advocate or whom the Full Court suo motu decides to confer the honour must be subject to an utmost strict process of scrutiny leaving no scope for any doubt or dissatisfaction in the matter.”
Notable Judgments at High Court
- Did you know? During his tenure in the Patna High Court, Justice Sinha initiated an empirical study of jails in Bihar to improve the condition of prisoners, which was the first of its kind in the country.[6]
Rajib Lochan Jha v. State of Bihar, 2004 SCC OnLine Pat 806
In this case the petitioner had requested the disciplinary authority that further action in the departmental proceeding be kept pending till decision in the criminal case registered against him, the allegation and charges in both being same, but the authorities in haste proceeded with the departmental proceedings and passed final orders of punishment. Later on the criminal prosecution came to be decided in favour of the petitioner wherein he was acquitted. In the aforesaid changed circumstances the petitioner of the said case when requested the authorities to review the order of dismissal, the same was rejected which ultimately led to filing of the writ application.
Sudarshan Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, 2008 SCC OnLine Pat 11
In a case related to the payment of court fees, Justice Navin Sinha* held that where by one strobe of pen in pursuance of one document several persons are affected they may approach the High Court in one single writ petition and when they claim a common relief. This would also save multiplicity of cases before High Court and they would not necessarily be required to pay separate Court fees each as if when they come to this Court in individual writ applications.
Binod Kumar Choudhary v. State of Bihar, 2008 SCC OnLine Pat 40
“Natural justice has aptly been described as not being an unruly horse but that its applicability shall depend on the facts of each case.”
Relying on the judgment in the case of Krishna v. State of Maharashtra : (2001) 2 SCC 441, Justice Navin Sinha* held that a person nominated under section 3(e) of Indian Dentist Act, 1948 can be removed at any time and the nominee can therefore hold office only till the satisfaction of the person nominating him applying the doctrine of pleasure and the satisfaction changes, by a decision for removal, the nomination comes to and end and in such a case the rules of natural justice are not applicable and therefore the nomination by invoking the doctrine of pleasure.
New Era High School v. State of Bihar, 2013 SCC OnLine Pat 937
In a writ application filed regarding the non-performance of statutory duties by the Pollution Control Board and the competent authority, Justice Navin Sinha*, while emphasising on the importance of fulfilment of duties to the citizens and society especially in today’s age of answerability and accountability, held that the Pollution Control Board and the Competent Authority are mandated and directed to perform their statutory obligation in accordance with law and pass final appropriate orders and/or actions.
State of Bihar v. Bihar Human Rights Commission, 2013 SCC OnLine Pat 998
After analyzing the provisions of the Act and various articles of the Constitution, the Division bench consisting of Navin Sinha* and Vikas Jain, JJ., held that the Human Rights Commission does not have any plenary power and cannot fix the wages of the workers.
“…the Commission exceeded its statutory jurisdiction to determine remuneration, wrongly assumed authority to overrule the decision of an expert committee on remuneration because it was not in accord with certain observations of the Commission, which itself was in excess of jurisdiction.”
Narendra Mishra v. State of Bihar, 2013 SCC OnLine Pat 1002
The Division bench of Navin Sinha and Vikas Jain, JJ., come down heavily on the public authorities i.e. Patna Municipal Corporation and passed an order that the height of building will be kept according to the width of Roads alongwith they are situated and also directed the State Government to submit before the Court an action plan for removal of encroachments from the Government land and premises of different government departments in the Districts.
- Did you know? It was under his guidance that the Chhattisgarh High Court became the second in the country to introduce payment of court fee electronically, followed by the Rajasthan HC.[7]
Suman v. Rohit Kumar Alariya, 2016 SCC OnLine Raj 10111
“The proceeding under the Family Courts Act cannot be put at par with a property dispute, a money claim, a commercial dispute or a service matter.”
In a divorce petition filed on the ground of cruelty, the Division bench of Navin Sinha*, C.J. and Goverdhan Bardhar, J., held that for disposing matrimonial cases Family Court Judge has to follow the mandate under section 10(3) of the Family Court Act and Family Judge cannot consider the matter mechanically and without sensitivity. The Court set aside the judgment and decree of divorce granted by the Family Court
“A cut and dry approach devoid of humane sensitivity, treating it as a routine litigation can have very serious consequences and repercussions on the parties and may even lead to extreme behaviour detrimental to human life of one of them cannot be ruled out.”
Ashok Kumar Koli v. Jyoti Koli, 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 3844
In a divorce petition filed on the ground of cruelty, the Division bench of Navin Sinha*, C.J. and Vijay Kumar Vyas, J., held that any pressure to live separate in her hearth and home from the family upon the husband would also constitute cruelty.
It was also held that the allegations of an extramarital affair unsubstantiated pertaining to one’s character was torturous and did constitute cruelty.
Shayara v. State of Rajasthan, 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 694
The Division bench of Navin Sinha*, C.J. and Goverdhan Bardhar, J., held that if the possibility of tutoring cannot be excluded completely and the dying declaration before the Magistrate does not inspire confidence, then the Court cannot rely on the same.
Allowing the appeal, the Court opined that the prosecution has established it’s case beyond all reasonable doubt so as to exclude completely any possibility of the deceased having suffered accidental burn injuries while cooking.
Legacy
“It is essential to ensure all stakeholders are trained and prepared for this new normal. We will be successful in ensuring justice delivery for all by taking a collaborative route as the way forward.”[8]
– NITI Aayog and Patna High Court initiate a drive for the use of technology to advance Access to Justice through Online Dispute Resolution(ODR)
Justice Navin Sinha is a man of intellectual humility, who is immesealy respected by his collegues. Justice Sihna had played a major role in computerization of Patna, Chattisgarh and Rajasthan High Courts. He is considered as a champion of Criminal Law but his expertise may overlap multiple areas of law. Apart from Criminal Law, he has disposed of a significant number of cases relating to Service Law, Civil Law and Property Law. Since his elevation to the Supreme Court, Justice Sinha has authored around 114 judgments in total on diverse subject and in multiple areas of law.
Justice Sinha’s legacy will be cherished by all. On this day of his retirement, we SCC OnLine team collectively thank him for his contribution to modernising the current judicial system and in the field of Law.
†Editorial Assistant, EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
* Judge who has penned the judgment.
** Judge who has penned the dissenting opinion
[1] https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/former-patna-hc-judge-elevated-to-supreme-court/story-L0TFuek5rIwQdx3KUuMxKI.html
[2] https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/former-patna-hc-judge-elevated-to-supreme-court/story-L0TFuek5rIwQdx3KUuMxKI.html
[3] https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/former-patna-hc-judge-elevated-to-supreme-court/story-L0TFuek5rIwQdx3KUuMxKI.html
[4] https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/03/01/patna-high-court-centenary-building-inauguration/
[5] https://www.indialegallive.com/top-news-of-the-day/top-story/coronavirus-has-created-novel-justice-needs-justice-ramana/
[6] https://www.indialegallive.com/top-news-of-the-day/top-story/coronavirus-has-created-novel-justice-needs-justice-ramana/
[7] https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/former-patna-hc-judge-elevated-to-supreme-court/story-L0TFuek5rIwQdx3KUuMxKI.html
[8] https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1679148
