On September 1, the Indian judiciary bid farewell to Justice Hima Kohli at the end of her three-year stint as a Supreme Court judge..Described as a "fierce protector of women's rights" by her peers, Justice Kohli passed a number of significant verdicts during her tenure.Outside the courtroom, she championed the cause of alternative dispute resolution, promoting arbitration and mediation as effective tools for resolving disputes and reducing the burden on the courts..Born on September 2, 1959, Justice Kohli enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi in 1984 and practiced in the Delhi High Court after that.In 2006, she was appointed as a judge of the Delhi High Court. In 2021, she took oath as Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court. In August 2021, the Collegium recommended Justice Kohli for elevation to the Supreme Court. She was appointed as an apex court judge on August 31, 2021..During her tenure at the apex court, Justice Kohli authored around 40 judgments and was part of benches that delivered verdicts in 208 cases.Here is a look at some of her most important rulings..1. Refusal to recognise right of same-sex couples to enter into marriage or civil unionCase Title: Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty and anr v. Union of IndiaA five-judge Constitution Bench unanimously refused to recognise the right of same-sex couples to enter into marriages. Three judges out of a five also refused to recognise the right of same-sex couples to have civil unions.The majority, which included Justice Kohli, held that the Court could not compel the State to create social or legal status around marriage. It also upheld the constitutionality of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 by stating that the Act's 'sole intention' was to facilitate interfaith marriages, not non-heterosexual unions.Read the majority and minority opinion here..2. Inadequate implementation of (POSH Act)Case Title: Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa and OthersIn this case, the Supreme Court took strong exception to the fact that even a decade after the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and. Redressal) Act (POSH Act), there remained serious lapses in its effective enforcement.Justice Kohli, who authored the decision, underlined that all state functionaries, public authorities, private undertakings, organiwations and institutions are duty bound to implement the POSH Act in letter and spirit.When the case was heard later on August 13, the Court had indicated that it would direct all states and union territories to prepare an online dashboard containing all the relevant information pertaining to the constitution and members of the Internal Committees (IC) of their departments.Read directions issued for effective implementation of POSH Act here..3. Split verdict in medical termination of pregnancy caseCase Title: X v. Union of IndiaIn this case, the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict in a case concerning the medical termination of pregnancy of a married woman who was at 26th week of pregnancy.Initially, the Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and BV Nagarathna had allowed the termination of pregnancy. However, after the latest medical report, the Bench recalled its earlier order and passed a split verdict.While Justice Kohli said that her 'judicial conscience' does not allow her to permit the termination of the pregnancy, Justice Nagarathna found no reason to interfere with the 'well reasoned order' passed by the Court..4. Safeguarding rights of consumer in Patanjali-misleading ad caseCase Title: In Re: Patanjali Ayurved Limited Through its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna and Baba RamdevThe Supreme Court initiated contempt proceedings against Patanjali Ayurved and its owners Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna based on a plea filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA).In a series of hearings that drew attention, the Bench led by Justice Kohli pulled up the duo for the company's misleading advertisements against evidence-based medicine. They had been found to be in breach of their earlier statement that they would not telecast or publish such misleading ads. The Court's focus in this case was initially on Patanjali's misleading ads, the failure of regulatory authorities to act against Patanjali, and the corrective steps to be taken by Patanjali and its promoters (Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna). However, the Court's attention was later drawn to several larger issues, including misleading advertisements by other consumer goods suppliers as well as unethical practices in modern medicine.The Court eventually closed the contempt proceedings after the contemnors issued a public apology..5. Delhi government has control over IAS, all services in Delhi except land, police and law and orderCase Title: Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of IndiaA five-judge Constitution Bench unanimously held that the Delhi government would have control over all services in the national capital, including the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), except those pertaining to land, police and law and order.The Bench, which also comprised Justice Kohli, stated that while a state or union territory has the power to make laws on subjects under the Concurrent List, the same will be subject to the existing Central law. At the same time, it has to be ensured that the governance of states is not taken over by the Central government, the Bench opined.The Central government went on to effectively annul this ruling after amending Article 239AA, which lays down special provisions with respect to Delhi..6. Ruling in Shinde-Thackeray Maharashtra politics matterCase Title: Subhash Desai vs Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra and orsA five-judge Constitution Bench unanimously held that the decision of former Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari's decision to call for a floor test based on the request of 34 MLAs of the Eknath Shinde faction was incorrect.The Bench, which also comprised Justice Kohli, said that the Governor could not have doubted the majority of the Thackeray government and dissatisfaction of some MLAs was not enough to call the floor test. Hence, the Governor was wrong to conclude that Uddhav Thakceray had lost majority in the house, the Court had said..7. Amazon-Future disputeCase Title: Future Coupons Pvt Ltd v. AmazonIn this case, the Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court order of October 29, 2021 which refused to stay the award passed by a Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) tribunal which had restrained Future Group from going ahead with its ₹24,731 crore merger deal with Reliance Retail.The Bench, which also comprised Justice Kohli, observed that the opportunity provided to the Future Group before the single-judge was insufficient, and cannot be upheld in the eyes of law.It, therefore, remanded the matter to the Delhi High Court to be considered afresh..8. Quashing Central government ban on MediaOne news channelCase Title: Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd v. Union of India and othersIn this case, the Supreme Court set aside the Central government's refusal to renew the broadcasting license of Malayalam news channel MediaOne citing national security concerns.It is duty of the press to speak truth to power, and critical views aired by the media cannot be termed 'anti-establishment', the Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice Kohli held.The Central government has raised national security concerns in a cavalier manner and there was nothing to submit that reasons divulged to threaten national security, the Court made it categorical..9. Implementing ban on two-finger testCase Title: State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar RaiIn this case, the Supreme Court warned that persons conducting the outdated 'two-finger test' on rape victims will be held guilty of misconduct.The Bench, which also comprised Justice Kohli, lamented the fact that this test is still conducted, even despite court rulings prohibiting the same Court has time and again ordered closure of this test.The Court directed the Central and state governments to ensure that the guidelines formulated by the Department of Health and Family Welfare (prescribes two finger test) are circulated to all government and private hospitals..10. Keeping Sedition law in abeyanceCase Title: SG Vombatkere vs Union of IndiaIn this case, the Supreme Court asked the Central and state governments to refrain from registering any cases for the offence of Sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code.The Bench directed that proceedings under Section 124A be kept in abeyance till the government's exercise of reviewing the provision is complete.This case is still pending before the court..11. Ordering expert committee probe in Pegasus-Spyware matterCase Title: Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of IndiaThe Court ordered a probe into the Pegasus surveillance scandal by a three-member expert committee.The Bench berated the Central government for raising the argument of national security to defend its case stating that it cannot be an omnibus argument to gain a free pass every time the Court exercises judicial review. The Centre had earlier refused to file an official affidavit in the matter, citing national security concerns.The Court also said that while it is the era of information technology which is crucial for our daily lives, it is equally important to safeguard the privacy of citizens.This case is still pending..12. Taking cognisance of Lakhimpur Kheri violenceCase Title: In Re-Violence in Lakhimpur Kheri (UP) Leading To Loss Of LifeThe Court took suo motu cognisance of the Lakhimpur Kheri case that saw the killing of eight persons, including a group of farmers who were allegedly mowed down by a vehicle driven by the Ashish Mishra, son of Union Minister and BJP MP Ajay Kumar Mishra.On the first day of hearing, the Court had directed the Uttar Pradesh government to file a status report regarding the investigation in the case.As Mishra continues to remain behind bars, the case is still pending..13. Ordering courts not to mention caste, religion of litigants in case papersCase Title: Shama Sharma v. Kishan KumarThe Court passed a general order directing its Registry, all High Courts and subordinate courts to stop the practice of mentioning the caste or religion of litigants in case papers.Justice Kohli, who was heading the Bench, observed that the practice should be shunned and stopped immediately..14. Political parties promising freebies before electionsCase Title: Ashwini Upadhyay v. Union of India and OthersIn 2022, the Court said that the issue of freebies promised by political parties before elections needs to be heard by a three-judge bench.The Bench, which also comprised Justice Kohli, said that the top court's 2013 judgment in Subramaniam Balaji v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu might need reconsideration.
On September 1, the Indian judiciary bid farewell to Justice Hima Kohli at the end of her three-year stint as a Supreme Court judge..Described as a "fierce protector of women's rights" by her peers, Justice Kohli passed a number of significant verdicts during her tenure.Outside the courtroom, she championed the cause of alternative dispute resolution, promoting arbitration and mediation as effective tools for resolving disputes and reducing the burden on the courts..Born on September 2, 1959, Justice Kohli enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi in 1984 and practiced in the Delhi High Court after that.In 2006, she was appointed as a judge of the Delhi High Court. In 2021, she took oath as Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court. In August 2021, the Collegium recommended Justice Kohli for elevation to the Supreme Court. She was appointed as an apex court judge on August 31, 2021..During her tenure at the apex court, Justice Kohli authored around 40 judgments and was part of benches that delivered verdicts in 208 cases.Here is a look at some of her most important rulings..1. Refusal to recognise right of same-sex couples to enter into marriage or civil unionCase Title: Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty and anr v. Union of IndiaA five-judge Constitution Bench unanimously refused to recognise the right of same-sex couples to enter into marriages. Three judges out of a five also refused to recognise the right of same-sex couples to have civil unions.The majority, which included Justice Kohli, held that the Court could not compel the State to create social or legal status around marriage. It also upheld the constitutionality of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 by stating that the Act's 'sole intention' was to facilitate interfaith marriages, not non-heterosexual unions.Read the majority and minority opinion here..2. Inadequate implementation of (POSH Act)Case Title: Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa and OthersIn this case, the Supreme Court took strong exception to the fact that even a decade after the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and. Redressal) Act (POSH Act), there remained serious lapses in its effective enforcement.Justice Kohli, who authored the decision, underlined that all state functionaries, public authorities, private undertakings, organiwations and institutions are duty bound to implement the POSH Act in letter and spirit.When the case was heard later on August 13, the Court had indicated that it would direct all states and union territories to prepare an online dashboard containing all the relevant information pertaining to the constitution and members of the Internal Committees (IC) of their departments.Read directions issued for effective implementation of POSH Act here..3. Split verdict in medical termination of pregnancy caseCase Title: X v. Union of IndiaIn this case, the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict in a case concerning the medical termination of pregnancy of a married woman who was at 26th week of pregnancy.Initially, the Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and BV Nagarathna had allowed the termination of pregnancy. However, after the latest medical report, the Bench recalled its earlier order and passed a split verdict.While Justice Kohli said that her 'judicial conscience' does not allow her to permit the termination of the pregnancy, Justice Nagarathna found no reason to interfere with the 'well reasoned order' passed by the Court..4. Safeguarding rights of consumer in Patanjali-misleading ad caseCase Title: In Re: Patanjali Ayurved Limited Through its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna and Baba RamdevThe Supreme Court initiated contempt proceedings against Patanjali Ayurved and its owners Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna based on a plea filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA).In a series of hearings that drew attention, the Bench led by Justice Kohli pulled up the duo for the company's misleading advertisements against evidence-based medicine. They had been found to be in breach of their earlier statement that they would not telecast or publish such misleading ads. The Court's focus in this case was initially on Patanjali's misleading ads, the failure of regulatory authorities to act against Patanjali, and the corrective steps to be taken by Patanjali and its promoters (Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna). However, the Court's attention was later drawn to several larger issues, including misleading advertisements by other consumer goods suppliers as well as unethical practices in modern medicine.The Court eventually closed the contempt proceedings after the contemnors issued a public apology..5. Delhi government has control over IAS, all services in Delhi except land, police and law and orderCase Title: Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of IndiaA five-judge Constitution Bench unanimously held that the Delhi government would have control over all services in the national capital, including the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), except those pertaining to land, police and law and order.The Bench, which also comprised Justice Kohli, stated that while a state or union territory has the power to make laws on subjects under the Concurrent List, the same will be subject to the existing Central law. At the same time, it has to be ensured that the governance of states is not taken over by the Central government, the Bench opined.The Central government went on to effectively annul this ruling after amending Article 239AA, which lays down special provisions with respect to Delhi..6. Ruling in Shinde-Thackeray Maharashtra politics matterCase Title: Subhash Desai vs Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra and orsA five-judge Constitution Bench unanimously held that the decision of former Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari's decision to call for a floor test based on the request of 34 MLAs of the Eknath Shinde faction was incorrect.The Bench, which also comprised Justice Kohli, said that the Governor could not have doubted the majority of the Thackeray government and dissatisfaction of some MLAs was not enough to call the floor test. Hence, the Governor was wrong to conclude that Uddhav Thakceray had lost majority in the house, the Court had said..7. Amazon-Future disputeCase Title: Future Coupons Pvt Ltd v. AmazonIn this case, the Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court order of October 29, 2021 which refused to stay the award passed by a Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) tribunal which had restrained Future Group from going ahead with its ₹24,731 crore merger deal with Reliance Retail.The Bench, which also comprised Justice Kohli, observed that the opportunity provided to the Future Group before the single-judge was insufficient, and cannot be upheld in the eyes of law.It, therefore, remanded the matter to the Delhi High Court to be considered afresh..8. Quashing Central government ban on MediaOne news channelCase Title: Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd v. Union of India and othersIn this case, the Supreme Court set aside the Central government's refusal to renew the broadcasting license of Malayalam news channel MediaOne citing national security concerns.It is duty of the press to speak truth to power, and critical views aired by the media cannot be termed 'anti-establishment', the Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice Kohli held.The Central government has raised national security concerns in a cavalier manner and there was nothing to submit that reasons divulged to threaten national security, the Court made it categorical..9. Implementing ban on two-finger testCase Title: State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar RaiIn this case, the Supreme Court warned that persons conducting the outdated 'two-finger test' on rape victims will be held guilty of misconduct.The Bench, which also comprised Justice Kohli, lamented the fact that this test is still conducted, even despite court rulings prohibiting the same Court has time and again ordered closure of this test.The Court directed the Central and state governments to ensure that the guidelines formulated by the Department of Health and Family Welfare (prescribes two finger test) are circulated to all government and private hospitals..10. Keeping Sedition law in abeyanceCase Title: SG Vombatkere vs Union of IndiaIn this case, the Supreme Court asked the Central and state governments to refrain from registering any cases for the offence of Sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code.The Bench directed that proceedings under Section 124A be kept in abeyance till the government's exercise of reviewing the provision is complete.This case is still pending before the court..11. Ordering expert committee probe in Pegasus-Spyware matterCase Title: Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of IndiaThe Court ordered a probe into the Pegasus surveillance scandal by a three-member expert committee.The Bench berated the Central government for raising the argument of national security to defend its case stating that it cannot be an omnibus argument to gain a free pass every time the Court exercises judicial review. The Centre had earlier refused to file an official affidavit in the matter, citing national security concerns.The Court also said that while it is the era of information technology which is crucial for our daily lives, it is equally important to safeguard the privacy of citizens.This case is still pending..12. Taking cognisance of Lakhimpur Kheri violenceCase Title: In Re-Violence in Lakhimpur Kheri (UP) Leading To Loss Of LifeThe Court took suo motu cognisance of the Lakhimpur Kheri case that saw the killing of eight persons, including a group of farmers who were allegedly mowed down by a vehicle driven by the Ashish Mishra, son of Union Minister and BJP MP Ajay Kumar Mishra.On the first day of hearing, the Court had directed the Uttar Pradesh government to file a status report regarding the investigation in the case.As Mishra continues to remain behind bars, the case is still pending..13. Ordering courts not to mention caste, religion of litigants in case papersCase Title: Shama Sharma v. Kishan KumarThe Court passed a general order directing its Registry, all High Courts and subordinate courts to stop the practice of mentioning the caste or religion of litigants in case papers.Justice Kohli, who was heading the Bench, observed that the practice should be shunned and stopped immediately..14. Political parties promising freebies before electionsCase Title: Ashwini Upadhyay v. Union of India and OthersIn 2022, the Court said that the issue of freebies promised by political parties before elections needs to be heard by a three-judge bench.The Bench, which also comprised Justice Kohli, said that the top court's 2013 judgment in Subramaniam Balaji v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu might need reconsideration.
