Who is Justice Abhay S Oka?

Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, born on 25th May 1960, serves as a judge of Supreme Court of India. He previously held positions as the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court and as a judge in Bombay High Court, demonstrating expertise in civil, constitutional, and service matters. Justice Abhay S Oka is actively engaged in numerous significant cases and public interest litigations.

How was the Carrer Journey of Justice Abhay S Oka?

• Justice Abhay S Oka pursued his B.Sc. and LL.M. at the University of Bombay.
• He commenced his legal career by enrolling as an Advocate on 28th June 1983, practicing initially in the Thane District Court under the guidance of his father, Shreeniwas W. Oka.
• His judicial journey saw him elevated as an Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court on 29th August 2003, then appointed as a permanent Judge from 12th November 2005.
• Swearing in as the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka on 10^th May 2019, and later as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India on 31^st August 2021, mark significant milestones in his illustrious career.

What are the Notable Judgments of Justice Abhay S Oka?

• Vinod Kumar v. Amrit Pal (2021):
  • In this criminal case, accused were convicted under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 19860 (IPC).
  • Despite an appeal, the High Court reduced the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC.
  • The Supreme Court examined the evidence, noting fatal injuries inflicted on the victim.
    • Despite the accused's claim of lacking intent to kill, medical evidence and circumstances indicated otherwise.
  • Justice Abhay S Oka authored the judgment holding that it does not matter that there was no intention even to cause the injury of a kind that is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Even the knowledge that an act of that kind is likely to cause death is not necessary to attract “thirdly”.
    • Hence, it follows that clause “thirdly” of Section 300 of IPC was applied in this case for restoring the conviction for murder.
• Vasudha Sethi v. Kiran Bhaskar (2021):
  • The case concerned the custody of a minor child born to appellant no.1 and respondent no.1, who are citizens of the USA.
  • The respondent alleged the appellant violated a travel consent agreement and detained the child in India.
  • The respondent sought a writ of habeas corpus from the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
  • The court ordered the appellant to communicate her willingness to travel to the USA within 15 days. If agreed, the appellant could travel with the child for custody proceedings.
  • Bench also consisting of Justice Abhay S Oka held that a writ Court while dealing with the issue of habeas corpus cannot direct a parent to leave India and to go abroad with the child. If such orders are passed against the wishes of a parent, it will offend her/his right to privacy.
• Debananda Tamuli v. Kakumoni Kataky (2022):
  • The appellant-husband sought divorce citing cruelty and desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).
  • The husband claimed the wife's refusal to consummate the marriage and her subsequent desertion caused mental cruelty.
  • The Supreme Court found grounds for desertion but rejected the cruelty claim.
  • It dissolved the marriage under desertion grounds.
• Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya v. District Development Officer Dahod (2022):
  • The case revolved around the entitlement of Anganwadi workers and helpers to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
  • The dispute arose when the Gujarat High Court set aside the orders granting gratuity to Anganwadi workers and helpers, stating they were not employees under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
  • However, the Supreme Court held that Anganwadi workers and helpers are indeed covered under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, directing authorities to extend benefits and pay interest on overdue gratuity amounts.
• Neeraj Dutta v. State NCT of Delhi (2022):
  • The Supreme Court's Constitution Bench ruled that for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, direct evidence of bribe demand or acceptance is not mandatory.
  • Circumstantial evidence can establish culpability.
  • The court observed that “The proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence”.
• Raj Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi (2023):
  • Supreme Court reviewed the conviction of accused under Section 302 and Section 307 of the IPC.
  • The appellant, convicted by the Sessions Court for his alleged involvement in a 1995 murder, was sentenced to life and rigorous imprisonment.
  • The Court noted discrepancies in witness testimonies and highlighted the failure to confront the accused with specific allegations during trial.
  • Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellant, emphasizing the importance of fair trial procedures and overturning the lower court's decision.