Who is Justice A S Bopanna?

Justice Ajjikuttira Somaiah Bopanna also known as A S Bopanna is a judge of Supreme Court of India. He was born on 20^th May 2024 and belongs to Kodagu (Coorg) in Karnataka. He was awarded as the Coorg Person of the Year, 2019.

How was the Career Journey of Justice A S Bopanna?

• Justice A S Bopanna was enrolled as an advocate on 21^st November 1984 and practised Civil, Constitutional, Company, Service and Labour matters in the High Court as well as the Civil and Labour Courts.
• He also worked as legal advisor to Central Public Sector Undertakings and worked as Additional Central Government Standing Counsel from 1999 onwards till 2005.
• He was appointed as an Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka on 06th January 2006 and became a permanent judge on 1^st March 2007.
• He was elevated as Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court on 29^th October 2018.
• He was elevated as a judge of the Supreme Court of India on 24^th May 2019.
• His retirement date is 19^th May 2024.

What are the Notable Cases of Justice A S Bopanna?

• Pawan Kumar Gupta v. State National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi (2020):
  • Pawan Kumar Gupta, an accused in the 2012 Delhi gang-rape case, challenged the Delhi High Court's order dismissing his claim of juvenility.
    • He contended that he was a juvenile at the time of the offence based on a school certificate.
  • The bench also comprising of Justice A S Bopanna dismissed accused's appeal, holding that he cannot reagitate the plea of juvenility after it was rejected by the Metropolitan Magistrate, High Court, and the Supreme Court earlier.
  • The court observed that once the plea has been rejected up to the Supreme Court, the petitioner cannot file a fresh application under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
• Attorney General of India v. Satish (2021):
  • Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Attorney General for India, brought to the Supreme Court's notice a Bombay High Court judgment acquitting an accused under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) on the ground of no sexual intent due to lack of skin-to-skin contact.
  • Considering it could set a dangerous precedent, the three judges' bench also consisting of Justice A S Bopanna stayed the acquittal, issued notice to the accused and Maharashtra, and allowed the Attorney General to file a petition against the judgment.
• Md. Salimullah v. Union of India (2021):
  • The case involves Rohingya refugees from Myanmar seeking relief against their proposed deportation by India.
  • The petitioners argued for the principle of non-refoulement based on international conventions, while the Union of India contended that as a non-signatory to the Refugee Convention, it has the right to deport foreigners citing national security concerns.
  • The Supreme Court denied interim relief against deportation but directed that the prescribed procedure be followed before any deportation of the Rohingyas detained in Jammu.
  • The Court also clarified that the rights under Articles 14 and 21 are available to non-citizens, but not the right to reside or settle in India.
• Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab (2023):
  • The case dealt with the trial court's power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to summon additional accused during a trial.
  • The bench also consisting of Justice A S Bopanna held that the power can be exercised before pronouncement of the order of sentence in case of conviction, or before the order of acquittal.
  • The Court laid down guidelines, including pausing the trial, deciding on joint or separate trial for the summoned accused, and conducting a fresh trial if a joint trial is ordered.
  • The Court also clarified the following position in case of bifurcated trials against absconding accused.
    • The trial court has the power to summon additional accused when the bifurcated trial is proceeded against the absconding accused after securing his presence, subject to the evidence recorded in that bifurcated trial pointing to the involvement of the accused sought to be summoned.
    • However, the evidence recorded in the main concluded trial cannot be the basis of the summoning order in the bifurcated trial, if the power under Section 319 CrPC was not exercised in the main trial till its conclusion.
    • So, in a bifurcated trial against an earlier absconding accused, the court can summon additional accused based only on the evidence recorded in that bifurcated trial itself, and not on the basis of evidence from the already concluded main trial.