Chhattisgarh High Court gets its new Chief Justice in Justice Ramesh Sinha, former senior judge of Allahabad High Court, who was recently appointed as the High Court's 15th Chief Justice vide notification dated 24-03-2023 issued by the Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice. The notification read as “In exercise of the power conferred by clause (1) of Article 217 of the Constitution of India, the President is pleased to appoint Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Judge of the Allahabad High Court, to be the Chief Justice of the Chhattisgarh High Court with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office”.1 Justice Ramesh Sinha as Chief Justice succeeds Justice Arup Kumar Goswami who retired earlier in March.
Education and Career Trajectory 2
Born on 05-09-1964, Justice Ramesh Sinha obtained his degree in law from Allahabad University in 1990 and got enlisted as an advocate on 08-09-1990. At the Allahabad High Court, he dealt with both criminal and civil matters. He was elevated to the Allahabad High Court on 21-11-2011, and he was accorded permanent status on 06-08-2013.
On 09-02-2023, the Supreme Court collegium recommended the appointment of Justice Ramesh Sinha, senior judge of Allahabad High Court as Chief Justice of Chhattisgarh High Court following the retirement of Justice Arup Kumar Goswami. On 29-03-2023, Governor Bishwabhushan Harichandan administered the oath of office to Justice Sinha in the Darbar Hall of Raj Bhawan3.
Notable decisions by Justice Ramesh Sinha 4
Section 16 G (3) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act not applicable to the teachers employed in private minority institutions; Allahabad High Court reiterates
In an intra court appeal against the judgment passed by a Single Judge dismissing writ petition filed by the appellant challenging his removal from a post of lecturer in Christ Church College, Lucknow (‘college’), on the ground that the removal was done in violation of Section 16 G (3) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the division bench of Ramesh Sinha and Subhash Vidyarthi, JJ. upheld the order of the Single Judge and said that the provisions of Section 16 G (3) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act are not applicable to the teachers employed in private minority institutions. Thus, the writ petition filed by a former teacher against the private unaided minority institution challenging the order of his termination and seeking restitution of his service, is not maintainable.
[Devesh Verma v. Christ Church College, 2023 SCC OnLine All 7,]]
[Pilibhit encounter 1991] Allahabad High Court commutes life sentence of 43 police personnel to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment
In an appeal filed by 43 convicts/appellants against the judgment of a Special Judge, convicted and sentenced for the offences 120-B, 302, 364, 365, 218, 117 of the Penal Code (‘IPC'), 1860, division bench of Ramesh Sinha and Saroj Yadav, JJ. set aside the said order of conviction for offences under Sections 302, 120-B, 364, 365, 218, 117 IPC. However, convicted the appellants under Section 304 Part I of (‘IPC') and sentence them to seven years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 10,000.
[Devendra Pandey v. State of UP, 2022 SCC OnLine All 844,]
Allahabad High Court denies bail to two members of Popular Front of India accused of planning an attack on different Hindu Religious Organisation
In a criminal appeal filed by two members of Popular Front India (‘PFI') (appellants-accused) under Section 21 of the National Investigation Act, 2008 against the order passed by Trial Court on the ground that the said order is illegal, unjust and improper, the division bench of Ramesh Sinha and Renu Agarwal, JJ. said that no satisfactory explanation has been given by the appellants about the seized objectionable articles including explosive substances recovered from them, thus, their involvement could not be ruled out. Further looking into their criminal antecedents and the fact that the trial is in progress, the Court refused to grant them bail.
[Ansad Badruddin v. State of UP, 2022 SCC OnLine All 843]
Allahabad High Court dismisses appeal against acquittal order in Babri Masjid Demolition Case
In an appeal against the judgment passed by the Special Judge acquitting the accused persons in Babri Masjid demolition case, the division bench of Ramesh Sinha and Saroj Yadav, JJ. has held that the appellants cannot be treated as ‘victims', therefore, they have no locus to maintain the instant appeal.
[Haji Mahboob Ahmad v. State of UP, 2022 SCC OnLine All 751,]
Cogent and clinching evidence found regarding conversion of deaf and dumb students to Islam; Bail denied: Allahabad High Court
The Division Bench of Brij Raj Singh and Ramesh Sinha, JJ. dismissed a criminal appeal which was filed under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 of refusal of bail to the appellant.
[Irfan Shaikh v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine All 195,]
Man murdered wife and 4 minor daughters and burned them. Will this case fall under rarest of rare category? Allahabad HC decides
The Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha and Rajeev Singh, JJ., upheld the capital punishment of a man who murdered his wife and four minor daughters.
[State of U.P. v. Ramanand, 2021 SCC OnLine All 451,]
Freedom of Speech cannot be extended to such an extent which may be prejudicial to National Interest: Allahabad High Court
[Imrana Khan v. State of U.P5.,]
Chief Standing Counsel for the State of U.P directed to collaborate with Meerut DM to look into the measures taken to combat Covid-19: Allahabad High Court
Convening via video-conferencing, the Division Bench of the Court comprising of Ramesh Sinha, and Siddharth Varma, JJ., looked into the instant Public Interest Litigation, wherein the petitioner appearing-in- person highlighted that how Covid-19 has reached an alarming level in the city of Meerut and how the city administration has not been able to provide adequate measures to contain the spread of Covid-19.
[Namman Rajvanshi v. State of U.P, 2020 SCC OnLine All 663,]
State to explain policy and norms for provision of medical facilities to migrant workers and rehabilitation scheme in Uttar Pradesh: Allahabad High Court
A Division Bench of Govind Mathur, and CJ Ramesh Sinha, J. while issuing notice to the State of Uttar Pradesh called upon the State to provide the rehabilitation scheme for migrant workers, policy and norms for providing medical facilities to them and complete layout to reduce migration of the natives of Uttar Pradesh to other parts of the country.
[Ritesh Srivastava v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 633,]
Banners displaying personal details of individuals accused of destroying public property during Anti-CAA protests directed to be removed: Allahabad High Court
A Division Bench of Govind Mathur, CJ and Ramesh Sinha, J. directed the District Magistrate, Lucknow and the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow Commissionerate, Lucknow to remove the banners from the roadside containing personal data of individuals who were accused of destroying the public property during Anti-CAA Protests in December 2019.
“Privacy is a fundamental human right recognized in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. In our country, where privacy is not explicitly recognized as a fundamental right in the constitution, the Courts have found such right protected as an intrinsic part of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
[In-Re Banners Placed On Road Side In the City of Lucknow v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 244,]
All HC | [Coronavirus] “HC administration asked to ensure zero error cleanliness” Precautionary steps to be taken in order to avoid COVID-19 becoming a worldwide epidemic
A Division Bench of Govind Mathur, CJ and Ramesh Sinha, J., addressed a petition filed by an Advocate regarding ensuring the precautionary steps to be taken to prevent COVID-19 in the premises of Allahabad High Court as well as at Lucknow.
[Shashank Shri Tripathi v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad6]
3. Collegium Resolution, Supreme Court of India
5. Criminal Misc. WP No. 8632 of 2020
6. PIL No. 533 of 2020
