Know Thy Judge | Justice Pritinker Diwaker: The 50th Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court

One of the oldest High Courts in India, the Allahabad High Court on 26-03-2023, witnessed the joyous occasion of swearing in of its 50th Chief Justice¹, Justice Pritinker Diwaker. Prior to his elevation, Justice Diwaker took over the mantle of Allahabad High Court’s Acting Chief Justice, as former Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal has been elevated to the Supreme Court in February.

Justice Pritinker Diwaker was administered the oath of office by Governor of Uttar Pradesh, Anandiben Patel².

Career Trajectory

Early Life and Advocacy³

Justice Pritinker Diwaker was born on 22-11-1961 and did his graduation in Law from Durgawati University, Jabalpur.

Justice Diwaker enrolled as Advocate in 1984 and mostly dealt with constitutional, civil and criminal matters. Subsequently, Justice Diwaker was appointed as Standing Counsel for SAIL, State Bank of India, Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank, Bank of Baroda, IDBI, Madhya Pradesh State Financial Corporation, Kotak Mahindra Bank, Raipur Dugdh Sangh, CBSE and several municipal corporations.

He was designated as Senior Advocate by High Court of Chhattisgarh in January 2005. He was a member of Madhya Pradesh State Bar Council for seven years and that of State Bar Council of Chhattisgarh for five years.

Judgeship

Justice Diwaker was later elevated as Judge of Chhattisgarh High Court on 31-03-2009, and he remained on this post till 02-10-2018⁴. Justice Diwaker was also appointed as Chhattisgarh High Court’s Acting Chief Justice.

Afterwards Justice Diwaker was transferred to Allahabad High Court on 03-10-2018. After the elevation of the then Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court, Justice Rajesh Bindal, to the Supreme Court, Justice Diwaker was appointed as Acting Chief Justice from 13-02-2023.

In its Resolution dated 09-02-2023, the Supreme Court Collegium comprising of Chief Justice of India Dr D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph took into consideration the fact that Justice Diwaker is the seniormost puisne Judge at the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and is suitable to be elevated as Allahabad High Court’s next Chief Justice. Thus, the Collegium recommended his appointment for the post of Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court⁵.

The Collegium’s recommendation got approval of the Central Government on 24-03-2023, when Justice Diwaker was appointed as 50th Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court⁶. Justice Diwaker took oath of office as Chief Justice on March 26-03-2023.

Notable Judgments by Justice Pritinker Diwaker

Guilt not established beyond reasonable doubt and to the satisfaction of the judicial conscience; Allahabad High Court acquits acid attack convict

In an appeal against the order of Additional Sessions Judge convicting the appellant under Section 326-A of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and sentencing him for life imprisonment and fine, the division bench of Pritinker Diwaker and Nalin Kumar Srivastava, JJ., in Vimal Kumar Maurya v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine All 6, set aside the impugned judgment and held that the convict is not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 326-A IPC. Read More

Dying Declaration| Administration of oath to the deceased before recording his declaration, does not render its credibility doubtful: Allahabad High Court

A Division Bench of Pritinker Diwaker and Ali Zamin, JJ., in Vidya Ram v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 2265, dismissed an appeal filed by the accused and held that the trial Judge was justified in convicting the appellants under Sections 302 and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860. Read More

“A confidence- inspiring dying declaration can even be the solitary basis for conviction without seeking any corroboration”: Allahabad High Court

The Division Bench of Pritinker Diwaker and Dinesh Pathak, JJ., in Munni Devi v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 759, affirming the sentence of conviction passed by the Sessions Court, observed that once a dying declaration is held to be authentic inspiring full confidence beyond doubt, voluntary, consistent and credible; in such sanctitude it can even be the exclusive and can be made the solitary basis for conviction without seeking any corroboration.

Lodging of a first FIR on the basis of a single case vis-à-vis Gangster’s Act, is valid and permissible: Allahabad High Court

The Division Bench of Pritinker Diwaker and Samit Gopal, JJ., in Ritesh Kumar v. State of U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine All 515, deliberated over the question that whether a FIR under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 can be lodged and is maintainable on the basis of involvement of the petitioner(s)/accused in a single previous case. It was held that as per the settled principles of law, the lodging of a first information report on the basis of a single case, is valid and permissible. In a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court cannot adjudicate the correctness of the allegations in the impugned first information reports or the cases on the basis of which the impugned first information reports have been lodged.

Chhattisgarh High Court directs the State Government to support victims of animal attacks

A Bench comprising of Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, C.J. and Pritinker Diwaker, J., in In re, Court on its own motion v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2017 SCC OnLine Chh 460, directed the State Government to support the families of unfortunate victims of animal attacks. The Court observed that to support victims of crimes by humans there is a victim compensation scheme under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Victims of animal attacks face similar situations as attack by human beings and hence in the absence of any specific schemes, the government should extend ex gratia help to a certain victim’s family whose child died of dog bite. The Court also gave the direction to State Government to describe what action has been taken for dissemination of information to the public at large about such facility regarding the enormous rate of dog bites including stray dogs. Read More

Mere presence as passer-by on the spot to see an incident would not make the person liable for formation of unlawful assembly: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Division Bench of Yatindra Singh, CJ., and Pritinker Diwaker, J., in Ramchander v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2013 SCC OnLine Chh 210, while deliberating over a murder case, observed that it is crystal clear that Constitution of unlawful assembly is a question of fact and the prosecution is required to prove constitution of unlawful assembly and its common object. Unlawful assembly may be constituted at any moment and person may join unlawful assembly at any time, even at the time of causing injury, but the prosecution is required to prove the aforesaid fact by adducing cogent and reliable evidence that the persons have formed the unlawful assembly or joined in unlawful assembly having its common object for commission of the aforesaid offence.

Chhattisgarh High Court declines to restrict the interpretation of R. 5 of Chhattisgarh Women Multipurpose Health Welfare (ANM) Courses Admission Rules, 2011

The Division Bench of Yatindra Singh, CJ., and Pritinker Diwaker, J., in Geeta Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2013 SCC OnLine Chh 102, while dealing with the interpretation of Rule 5 of Chhattisgarh Women Multipurpose Health Welfare (ANM) Courses Admission Rules, 2011, held that it would be unfair to restrict the advantage of age relaxation to one category. “In our opinion, the candidate is entitled to all age relaxation if she falls in more than one category of age relaxation”.

Right to admission in an educational institution leading to a qualification which allows one to practice a vocation cannot be curtailed without authority of law: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Division Bench of Navin Sinha, A.C.J. and Pritinker Diwaker, J., in Maharana Pratap Homoeopathy Medical College and Hospital v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2014 SCC OnLine Chh 160, considered a constitutional question that whether Rules framed by the State Government for admission to the Bachelor of Homoeopathy Medicine and Surgery Course under Entry 25 of List III to the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, prescribing a maximum age limit of 25 years is ultra vires the Regulations framed by the Central Council for Homeopathy fixing a minimum age only of 17 years for admission to the BHMS Course under Entry 66, List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. It was held that the right to admission in an educational institution leading to a qualification which allows one to practice a vocation or profession after successful completion of the course cannot be curtailed without authority of law in violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution subject to the law of reasonableness and arbitrariness.

Interference with the policy decision and issuance of a writ of mandamus to frame a policy in a particular manner are different: Chhattisgarh High Court

The division of Bench of Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, C.J. and Pritinker Diwaker*, J., in Mamta Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2017 SCC OnLine Chh 313, deliberated over a Public Interest Litigation which was filed for seeking a direction to the respondents for complete prohibition of the sale of liquor in the State of Chhattisgarh and further to take all welfare measures in relation to the health and nutrition of the citizens of the State. It was held that it is a settled legal position that in the cases where such policy matters are involved, the Courts cannot issue a writ of mandamus asking the State Government to frame a policy in a particular manner as such exercise is not within the domain of the Court to legislate. of course, if a policy decision taken or a notification issued by the legislature or the executive, appears to be arbitrary, the frown of Article 14 of the Constitution can be put in operation. But in the case in hand, no policy as on date, has been made by the State Government in respect of prohibiting the sale and consumption of liquor.