“A possibility of abuse cannot be used to deny legitimate rights to citizens”
Justice A.M. Khanwilkar
Jigya Yadav v. CBSE, (2021) 7 SCC 535
A trip down the memory lane is what Retirements and Farewells essentially are in regards to a Supreme Court Judge. It is a chance to reminisce and cherish their tenure and take in the importance and gravity of the imprint that they will leave behind in the form of their numerous decisions. The year 2022 is ‘The Year of Farewells’ for the Supreme Court, because never before has it seen such a flurry of retirements as it has in this year.
This month, Supreme Court’s Justice Ajay Manikrao Khanwilkar is all set to retire after a comprehensive term of 6 years. It also means that it is time for us to take our readers on a time travel, to run through the past and present of Justice Khanwilkar’s life in law, with anticipation for an equally stellar future.
Early Life and Career as an Advocate [1982- 2000][1]
Justice A. M. Khanwilkar was born on 30-07-1957 in Pune, Maharashtra. He did his graduation (B. Com) from Mulund College of Commerce, Mumbai and LL.B. from K.C. Law College, Mumbai.
After graduating in law, Justice Khanwilkar enrolled as Advocate on 10-02-1982. During his time as a counsel, Justice Khanwilkar handled Civil, Criminal and Constitutional matters before the Subordinate Courts, Tribunals and High Court of Judicature at Bombay on the Appellate Side as well as the Original Side. During his practicing years, Justice Khanwilkar got a wide range of exposure in Criminal, Civil, Constitutional, Election and Co-operative matters.
From the year 1984, Justice Khanwilkar started his practice in the Supreme Court of India. He also worked as Additional Government Advocate for the State of Maharashtra till December 1989. Justice Khanwilkar was appointed as Panel Counsel for Union of India in January 1990 whereby which, he had the opportunity to represent the Union of India in several matters of national importance.
In August 1994 he was appointed as Amicus Curiae by the Supreme Court to assist on environmental issues in the case of M.C. Mehta (Calcutta Tanneries’ Matter) v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 411. He was also the Standing Counsel for the Election Commission of India for Supreme Court matters from March 1995 till his elevation as a Judge. In October 1995, Justice Khanwilkar was appointed as Standing Counsel for the State of Maharashtra for Supreme Court matters.
♦Did you Know? Even in private practice, Justice Khanwilkar had on occasion handled matters of great significance before the Supreme Court to represent persons in high public offices as also various statutory Authorities, Corporations and institutions.
As Member of Committees/Task Force/ Associations
Justice Khanwilkar was appointed as Member of the Task force (headed by the former Chief Justice of India Justice E. S. Venkataramaiah ) constituted by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India in November 1995 for examining and reporting on the amendments needed in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
He was also the Executive Member of the Supreme Court Bar Association and Joint Secretary and Executive Member of the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association.
Notable Appearances as a Counsel
- Raghunath Laxman Makadwada v. State of Maharashtra, (1986) 2 SCC 90
- R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, (1986) 2 SCC 716 and A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602
- Sheela Barse v. Union of India, (1986) 3 SCC 632
- President, Assn. of Allottees of Requisition Premises v. State of Maharashtra, 1986 Supp SCC 567
- Election Commission of India v. Shivaji, (1988) 1 SCC 277
- Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692
- Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of U.P., (1990) 1 SCC 109
- Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655
- Krishna Swami v. Union of India, (1992) 4 SCC 605
- Charan Lal Sahu v. K.R. Narayanan, (1998) 1 SCC 56
- Sreekumar Mukherjee v. Zainel Abedin, (1999) 2 SCC 558
- Yusuf Khan v. Manohar Joshi, (2000) 2 SCC 696
Judgeship of the High Court [2000- 2016][2]
A.M. Khanwilkar’s tryst with judgeship began from the year 2000 when he was appointed as the Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court on 29-03-2000. He was later confirmed as permanent Judge of the Bombay High Court on 08-04-2002.
On 04-04-2013, Justice Khanwilkar was elevated the Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. Thereafter, he was appointed as Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court on 24-11-2013.
Notable High Court Decisions
Bombay High Court
State of Maharashtra v. Murarao Malojirao Ghorpade, 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 1645
Swatanter Kumar, CJ., and S.B. Mhase, A.M. Khanwilkar, A.S. Oka and R.M. Savant, JJ., held that Words “all the land held by a person or as the case may be by a family unit whether in this State or any part of India” in Section 3(2) of Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceilings on Holdings) Act (27 of 1961), cannot be given effect as it has extra-territorial operation beyond State of Maharashtra.
Harish Vithal Kulkarni v. Pradeep Mahadev Sabnis, 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 1996
The 3 Judge Bench of Swatanter Kumar, CJ., and A.M. Khanwilkar and Mridula Bhatkar, JJ., held that expression “or” occurring in Order 18, Rule 4(2), CPC, means “either”. Expression “shall” occurring in Order 18, Rule 4(2) is mandatory only to extent that cross-examination of witness, whose evidence has been taken on Affidavit in lieu of chief-examination, has to be taken. It was held that the Court has discretion to direct cross-examination to be done before the Commissioner appointed by it with such directions as it may think fit and it is not mandatory for Court to record evidence only before Court. Judicial discretion contemplated in Order 18, Rule 4(2) is to be exercised on settled principles of law; evidence can also be recorded by electronic media which may result in expeditious disposal.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
State of H.P. v. Mehboon Khan, 2013 SCC OnLine HP 4080
The 3 Judge Bench of AM Khanwilkar, CJ., and VK Sharma and Dharam Chandra Chaudhry,JJ., held that Section 293 of CrPC postulates that Expert Report cannot be thrown out merely because Expert was not summoned or because details of tests not been given, unless and until Court is satisfied that summoning of Expert for furnishing tests carried out is necessary.
Vikram Chauhan v. Managing Director, 2013 SCC OnLine HP 1715
While deciding the issue that whether Co-operative Banks established in the State of Himachal Pradesh are “State” within the meaning of Art. 12, the Bench of AM Khanwilkar, CJ., R.B. Misra and DD Sud, JJ., referred the issue for consideration of Full Bench.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Asif Mohd. Khan v. State of M.P., 2015 SCC OnLine MP 6742
The powers of the competent authority regarding suspension of employee are, that they can pass order revoking suspension of employee and can also transfer him at another place. There is no prohibition in M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, R. 9(5)(a) and (b) barring Competent Authority from passing such composite order.
Technofab Engineering Ltd. v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine MP 6744
Sch. I, Art. 1-A [As substituted by M.P. Amendment Act (6 of 2008) w.e.f. 2-4-2008] of Court Fees Act, providing for upper limit of Court Fees instead of ad valorem Court Fees is beneficial legislation. The benefit of upper limit of Court Fees prescribed by Amendment Act, must be applied uniformly to all litigants instituting their claim after 2-4-2008, be it in the form of plaint before subordinate Court or memorandum of appeal before the High Court.
Judgeship of Supreme Court of India [2016- 2022]
Justice Khanwilkar was elevated as Judge of Supreme Court of India and assumed charge on 13-05-2016.
In March 2018, Justice Khanwilkar was appointed as the Chairman of the Water Disputes Tribunal called ‘The Mahanadi Water Disputes Tribunal’, for the adjudication of the water dispute regarding the inter-State River Mahanadi, and the river valley thereof. The appointment was done in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, and by an order of the President. The Tribunal was constituted by the Central Government with the members nominated by the Chief Justice of India.
Notable Supreme Court Judgments
When it comes to Justice Khanwilkar’s many decisions as a Supreme Court Judge, his tenure has been multi-faceted, as his decisions have not centered around one specific field of law.[3]
♦Did You Know? Justice Khanwilkar has authored approximately 200+ Supreme Court Judgments[4]
Some of the notable decisions on various issues, that have been rendered by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and the decisions that he had been a part of, are as follows-
Prevention of Money Laundering Act
Justice Khanwilkar’s final week before his retirement saw the coming of a significant decision concerning the constitutional validity of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, SLP (Criminal) No. 4634 OF 2014, the 3-Judge Bench of A.M. Khanwilkar*, Dinesh Maheshwari and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ., upheld the validity of the challenged provisions of the 2002 legislation. The Bench also held that in view of the special mechanism envisaged by the 2002 Act, ECIR cannot be equated with an FIR under CrPC. “Supply of a copy of ECIR in every case to the person concerned is not mandatory, it is enough if Enforcement Directorate at the time of arrest, discloses the grounds of such arrest”.
Fundamental Rights
In Jigya Yadav v. CBSE, (2021) 7 SCC 535, the 3-judge bench of AM Khanwilkar*, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ., held that the right to control one’s identity is a fundamental right and the Central Board of Secondary Education cannot deny such right by refusing to allow a person to change their name in the Certificates without giving them reasonable opportunity.
A 5 Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A. K. Sikri, A. M. Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan in Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1 held that the right to die with dignity is a fundamental right. An individual’s right to execute advanced medical directives is an assertion of the right to bodily integrity and self-determination and does not depend on any recognition or legislation by a State.
Elections
In Shobhabai Narayan Shinde v. Commr., (2022) 3 SCC 35, while deciding that whether an appeal could be filed before the Divisional Commissioner against an order passed by the Collector under Section 14B (1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, declining to disqualify a Sarpanch/Member of the Panchayat for allegedly having failed to lodge an account of election expenses within the time and in the manner prescribed by the State Election Commission, without offering any good reason or justification for such failure? Answering an interesting question of law, the Bench of AM Khanwilkar* and CT Ravikumar, JJ., held that no remedy of appeal is envisaged against an order of the State Election Commission or its delegatee –the Collector, under Section 14B (1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, rejecting the complaint or to drop the proceedings for declaration of a Sarpanch/Member having incurred disqualification.
In the case of Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 224, the 5-judge bench comprising Dipak Misra, CJ., and R.F. Nariman, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, JJ., made the disclosure of criminal antecedents by the contesting candidates mandatory and held that the disclosure of antecedents makes the election a fair one and the exercise of the right of voting by the electorate also gets sanctified. It has to be remembered that such a right is paramount for a democracy. A voter is entitled to have an informed choice.
In Rahul Ramesh Wagh v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 692, the Bench of A.M. Khanwilkar, Abhay S. Oka and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ., directed Maharashtra State Election Commission to expeditiously conduct elections of local bodies (around 2486), which were pending for over 2 years (in some cases) due to disputed constitutional validity of State Amendments seeking to introduce delimitation in the State.
Local Government- OBC Reservation in Elections
The 3-Judge Bench comprising of A.M. Khanwilkar*, Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi, JJ., addressed the instant petition, i.e., Vikas Kishanrao Gawali v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 6 SCC 73, wherein a declaration had been sought that Section 12(2)(c) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 (Act, 1961), was ultra vires the provisions of Articles 243D and 243T including Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Bench remarked-
“State legislations cannot simply provide uniform and rigid quantum of reservation of seats for OBCs in the local bodies across the State that too without a proper enquiry into the nature and implications of backwardness by an independent Commission”
Schools, Students and Education
The division bench of AM Khanwilkar* and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ., in Indian School v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 10 SCC 517, issued “general uniform direction” of deduction of 15 per cent of the annual school fees for the academic year 2020-2021 in lieu of unutilized facilities/activities and not on the basis of actual data school-wise. The said direction was issued in order to obviate avoidable litigation by over 36,000 schools and to give finality to the issue of determination and collection of school fees for the academic year 2020¬21, as a one-time measure.
The 3-judge bench of AM Khanwilkar*, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar, JJ., in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1005, directed the Central Government to notify the norms and standards of pupil-teacher ratio for special schools and also separate norms for special teachers who alone can impart education and training to Children/Child with Special Needs (CwSN) in the general schools. While the Petitions before the Court pertained to State of Uttar Pradesh and Punjab only, the extensive direction issued by the Court will apply pan India.
The bench of AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ., in Mamta Sharma v. CBSE, (2022) 1 SCC 368, refused to interfere with the assessment Scheme propounded by the C.B.S.E or I.C.S.E for the Class XII students and has held that, “… the stated Schemes are fair and reasonable and take into account concerns of all students and is in larger public interest.”
Legislative Processes/ Legislations
In a big relief to the 12 BJP MLAs who were suspended by the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, by resolution dated 05.07.2021, for a period of 1 year due to “undisciplined and unbecoming behavior resulting in maligning the dignity of the House”, the 3-judge bench of A.M. Khanwilkar*, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar, JJ., in Ashish Shelar v. Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 105, held that the said resolution is unconstitutional, grossly illegal and irrational to the extent of period of suspension beyond the remainder of the concerned (ongoing) Session.
The 2-judge bench of AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ., in L.R. Brothers Indo Flora Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 705, held that for application of a subsequent legislation retrospectively, it is necessary to show that the previous legislation had any omission or ambiguity or it was intended to explain an earlier act.
Judiciary, Courts and its Administration, Practice and Procedure etc.
Holding advocates to be officers of the Court, the bench of AM Khanwilkar* and CT Ravikumar, JJ., in NKGSB Cooperative Bank Limited v. Subir Chakravarty, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 239, held that it would be open to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM)/District Magistrate (DM) to appoint an advocate commissioner to assist him/her in execution of the order passed under Section 14(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
The high voltage matter in Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India, (2018) 1 SCC 196; highlighting the case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation against retired Orissa High Court Judge, Justice I.M. Quddusi, containing serious allegations implicating the said Judge under Ss. 8 and 120-B of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the 5-judge bench of Dipak Misra, CJ., along with RK Agrawal, Arun Mishra, Amitava Roy and AM Khanwilkar, JJ held that- “There can be no doubt that the Chief Justice of India is the first amongst the equals, but definitely, he exercises certain administrative powers”.
A 5-judge bench in State of Jharkhand v. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd., (2018) 2 SCC 602, held that Supreme Court cannot entertain objections as the Original Court solely because it has appointed the arbitrator.
The bench of Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi, JJ., in Rachna v. Union of India, (2021) 5 SCC 638, held that the Courts cannot issue mandamus to frame policy. The Court was hearing the case where the last attemptees of the UPSC Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2020 had sought an extra attempt to clear the exam in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Explaining the importance of the role of Trial Courts, especially, with respect to framing of charges, the bench of A.M. Khanwilkar, Abhay S. Oka and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ., in Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey, Crl.A. No.-001041-001041/2022, held that the trial court is enjoined with the duty to apply its mind at the time of framing of charge and should not act as a mere post office. The endorsement on the charge sheet presented by the police as it is without applying its mind and without recording brief reasons in support of its opinion is not countenanced by law.
Central Vista Project
The 3-judge bench of A.M. Khanwilkar*, Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ., in Rajiv Suri v. Delhi Development Authority, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 7, by a 2:1 verdict, gave a go ahead to the Central Vista Project. As per the Government, the Project, which plans to build a New Parliament building, is necessary for the creation of a larger working space for efficient functioning of the Parliament and for integrated administrative block for Ministries/Departments presently spread out at different locations including on rental basis.
Aadhar Card/ Right to Privacy
In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2018) 3 SCC 797, the Supreme Court quashed the order of Central Board of Secondary Education (C.B.S.E) asking the students to get themselves registered for National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) examinations by producing AADHAR numbers. The Court stated that
“The students who intend to register in the said Board for NEET examination and for any other All India examinations, need not necessarily produce the Aadhaar number for the present, but they may be asked to produce any alternative identification number, such as ration card, passport, voter ID, driving licence and bank account.”
Justice Khanwilkar was part of the Constitution Bench which decided one of the most significant decisions related to ‘Right to Privacy’ in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) v. Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1 which declared the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 to be valid and not violative of the fundamental right to privacy. However, certain orders and/or circulars making the citing of Aadhaar number mandatory have been held unconstitutional and struck down with a ratio of 4:1. However, despite going through several rounds of litigation and long hours consideration, the Adhaar Controversy had once again popped up before the Supreme Court.
The 5- Judge Constitution Bench of A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan, S. Abdul Nazeer and B.R. Gavai, JJ., in Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar Review-5 J.), (2021) 3 SCC 1 addressed the review petition against the final verdict in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5 Judges) v Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1.
Same –Sex Relationships – Constitutionality of S. 377 IPC
In the landmark judgment of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1, the 5-Judge Bench of Dipak Misra, CJ., and R.F. Nariman, A.M. Khanwilkar, Dr D.Y. Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, JJ., partially struck down Section 377 of the Penal Code, decriminalising same-sex relations between consenting adults. LGBT individuals are now legally allowed to engage in consensual intercourse. The Court had upheld provisions in Section 377 that criminalise non-consensual acts or sexual acts performed on animals.
Centre- State Relationship/ Federalism
In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Union of India, (2018) 8 SCC 501 also known as Delhi v. Centre case, the 5-Judge Bench comprising of Dipak Misra, CJ., and A.K. Sikri, A.M Khanwilkar, Dr D.Y. Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan JJ., held that the words “any matter” employed in the proviso to clause (4) of Art. 239AA of the Constitution cannot be inferred to mean “every matter”. The power of the Lieutenant Governor under the said proviso represents the exception and not the general rule which has to be exercised in exceptional circumstances by the Lieutenant Governor keeping in mind the standards of constitutional trust and morality, the principle of collaborative federalism and constitutional balance, the concept of constitutional governance and objectivity and the nurtured and cultivated idea of respect for a representative government. The Lieutenant Governor should not act in a mechanical manner without due application of mind so as to refer every decision of the Council of Ministers to the President.
Freedom of Speech and Expression and Hate Speeches
The bench of A.M. Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ., in Amish Devgan v. Union of India, (2021) 1 SCC 1, refused to quash the FIRs registered against News18 Journalist Amish Devgan for using the term “Lootera Chisti” in one of his shows but has granted interim protection to him against arrest subject to his joining and cooperating in investigation till completion of the investigation. While holding this, the bench made an attempt to define “hate speech” albeit it was of the opinion that a universal definition of ‘hate speech’ remains difficult, except for one commonality that ‘incitement to violence’ is punishable.
Commutation of Death Sentence
The 3-judge bench of A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ., in Manoj Pratap Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 768, refused to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment of a man convicted for brutal rape and murder of a 7-year-old physically and mentally challenged girl. The Court noticed that it is unlikely that the appellant, if given an absolution, would not be capable of and would not be inclined to commit such a crime again.
Evidentiary value of Parliamentary Committee Reports
The 5-Judge Bench comprising of Dipak Misra, CJ., and A.M. Khanwilkar, Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, Dr A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ., in Kalpana Mehta v. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 1, held that Parliamentary Standing Committee Report or any Parliamentary Committee Report can be taken judicial notice of and regarded as admissible in evidence, but it can neither be impinged nor challenged nor can its validity be called into question.
Child Custody
The bench of A.M. Khanwilkar and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ., in a matter relating to custody of two minor children, advised the parents to respect each other and resolve the conflict respectfully, to give the children ‘a good foundation for the conflict that may, God forbid, arise in their own lives’. In Rajeswari Chandrasekhar Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 885, the Court observed that, “The parties should try to do their best to remain relaxed and focused. It is critical to maintain boundaries between adult problems and children. It is of utmost interest to protect the innocence of children and allow them to remain children”.
Sexual Offences
In a plea concerning imposition of certain conditions in a case involving a sexual offence against a woman, at any stage of judicial proceedings, that trivialize the trauma undergone by survivors and adversely affect their dignity, the bench of A.M. Khanwilkar and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ., in Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 230, held that the use of reasoning/language which diminishes the offence and tends to trivialize the survivor, is to be avoided under all circumstances.
Reminding the Courts of their duty, the Bench stated that-
“The role of all courts is to make sure that the survivor can rely on their impartiality and neutrality, at every stage in a criminal proceeding, where she is the survivor and an aggrieved party. Even an indirect undermining of this responsibility cast upon the Court, by permitting discursive formations on behalf of the accused, that seek to diminish his agency, or underplay his role as an active participant (or perpetrator) of the crime, could in many cases, shake the confidence of the rape survivor (or accuser of the crime) in the impartiality of the Court.”
Adultery
The 5-Judge Constitution Bench in Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39, held Section 497 IPC and Section 198 (2) CrPC to be unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 15 (1) and 21 of the Constitution. Dipak Misra, C.J., delivered the leading judgment for himself and A.M. Khanwilkar, J. While R.F. Nariman, Dr D.Y. Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, JJ., each delivered their separate concurring opinions. Dipak Misra, CJ., (for himself and A.M. Khanwilkar, J.,) stated that on a reading of the provision, it is demonstrable that women are subordinated to men in as much as it lays down that when there is connivance or the consent of the man (husband), there is no offense. This treats the woman as a chattel. It treats her as the property of man and totally subservient to the will of the master. It is the reflection of the social dominance that was prevalent when the penal provision was drafted. It was also noted that the section doesn’t bring within its purview an extramarital relationship with the unmarried woman or a widow. It treats husband of the women to be a person aggrieved for the offense punishable under Section 497. It does not treat the wife of the adulterer as an aggrieved person.
Tribunals
The Bench of A.M. Khanwilkar, Hrishikesh Roy and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ., considered the question, whether the National Green Tribunal has the power to exercise Suo Motu jurisdiction in the discharge of its functions under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 897, it was observed that “NGT, with the distinct role envisaged for it, can hardly afford to remain a mute spectator when no-one knocks its door”.
Taxation
Justice A.M. Khanwilkar was part of the majority opinion in the 7:2 majority Entry Tax verdict in Jindal Stainless Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2017) 12 SCC 1 which upheld the validity of the entry tax imposed by the States on goods imported from other States. It was held that taxes simpliciter are not within the contemplation of Part XIII of the Constitution of India and that the word ‘Free’ used in Article 301 does not mean “free from taxation”.
Sidhu Road Rage
Allowing the review petition in the 34-year-old road-rage case involving cricketer-turned-politician Navjot Singh Sidhu that resulted into the death of one 65-yer-old Gurnam Singh, the bench of A.M. Khanwilkar and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, JJ., in Jaswinder Singh v. Navjot Singh Sidhu, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 652, imposed a sentence of one-year rigorous imprisonment on Sidhu in addition to the fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed in the order dated 15-05-2018.
Decisions That Initiated a Broader Discourse
In Justice Khanwilkar’s varied trajectory as a SC Judge, there were some decisions which generated quite a buzz, not only in the legal circles but also in the political crowd and the civil society at large. Besides the very recent decision in Madanlal Choudhry v. Union of India (PMLA case), there have been other cases which encouraged a dialogue within the various sections of the society and media. Some of those cases have been listed below-
Foreign funding for NGOs
In a major win for the Union of India, the 3-judge bench of A.M. Khanwilkar*, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar, JJ., in Noel Harper v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 434, upheld the validity of the amendments to the provisions of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 vide the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Act, 2020. The Court was of the opinion that receiving foreign donations cannot be an absolute or even a vested right. By its very expression, it is a reflection on the constitutional morality of the nation as a whole being incapable of looking after its own needs and problems.
Gauri Lankesh Murder Case
In a major development in the Gauri Lankesh murder case, the bench of AM Khanwilkar*, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar, JJ., in Kavitha Lankesh v. State of Karnataka, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 956, set aside the Karnataka High Court order wherein it had quashed chargesheet filed against one Mohan Nayak. N, regarding offences under Sections 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(3) and 3(4) of Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act, 2000.
Godhra Riots Case
The 3-judge bench of A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar, in Zakia Ahsan Jafri v. State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 773, dismissed Zakia Jafri’s plea challenging the clean chit given to Prime Minister Narendra Modi by the Special Investigation Team in 2002 Gujarat riots case. The Court observed that no fault can be found with the approach of the SIT in submitting final report back in 2012, which is backed by firm logic, expositing analytical mind and dealing with all aspects objectively for discarding the allegations regarding larger criminal conspiracy (at the highest level) for causing and precipitating mass violence across the State of Gujarat against the minority community.
Entry of Women in Sabrimala Temple
A 5-Judge Constitution Bench, in Indian Young Lawyers Assn. (Sabarimala Temple-5J.) v. State of Kerala, (2019) 11 SCC 1, by a majority of 4:1, held that not allowing entry to women of the age group of 10 to 50 years in the Sabarimala Temple is unconstitutional. The judgment of the Court was delivered by Dipak Misra, CJ., for himself and A.M. Khanwilkar, J.; while, R.F. Nariman and Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ., each gave separate concurring opinions. The only lady Judge on the Bench, Indu Malhotra, J. rendered a dissenting opinion.
Dipak Misra, CJ., and A.M. Khanwilkar, J., held that the exclusionary practise followed at the Sabarimala temple violates the right of Hindu women to freely practise their religion and exhibit their devotion towards Lord Ayyappa. The practice of exclusion of women of the age group of 10 to 50 years cannot be regarded as an essential part as claimed by the respondent Board.
Legacy
♦Did you Know? During his tenure as a Judge, A.M. Khanwilkar, J., has been part of almost 809 Benches![5]
Every field in Law is a vast universe in itself and it is through the contributions of lawyers and judges alike that people are able to access this ‘multiverse’. It would not be wrong to say that ever since Justice Khanwilkar entered the legal profession, at every step of his career, he has traversed into this infinite realm. At every phase of his career- whether it be Judging or Getting Judged- Justice Khanwilkar has not only proved his mettle, but his contributions have enriched the legal space for the posterity to savour.
Law is like the universe- infinite; thus, there are always chances of expansion. Since 1982, Justice Khanwilkar truly has been exploring the “multiverse of law”. We very much look forward to the next chapter in Justice Khanwilkar’s career with hopes that he keeps on exploring and expanding the legal boundaries.
†Sucheta Sarkar, Editorial Assistant has put this report together
* Judge who has authored the decision
[1] Hon’ble Former Justices, High Court of Bombay
[2] Chief Justice and Judges, Supreme Court of India
[3] Justice AM Khanwilkar, SC Observer
[5] Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, SC Observer
