Who is Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh? 

• Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh is born on 20th January 1963. He spent formative years in diligent pursuit of education.  

How was the Career Journey of Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh? 

• Justice Chankradhari Sharan Singh pursued higher education at University of Delhi. 
• He obtained LL.B. Degree from Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi. 
• He enrolled as an advocate on 30th October, 1990. 
• He served as Additional Standing Counsel for the Central Government. 
• He was later appointed as Additional Advocate General for the Government of Bihar. 
• He was recommended by Supreme Court Collegium as 34th Chief Justice of Orissa High Court on 2nd November, 2023. 
• He was sworn in as Chief Justice of Orissa High Court on 7th February, 2024.  

What are the Notable Judgments of Justice Chankradhari Sharan Singh ? 

• Registrar Judicial, Orissa High Court v. State of Odisha (2024): 
  • A Division Bench of Chief Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Justice Savitri Ratho heard a suo motu public interest litigation. 
  • The case involved an army officer and his fiancée who were arrested for allegedly attempting to murder a police official. 
  • The incident occurred when the couple visited a police station to register an FIR. 
  • Justice (Retd.) C.R. Dash of Orissa High Court was appointed to head a Commission of Inquiry to investigate the matter. 
  • The Court identified an issue with lack of CCTV cameras in police stations across the state. 
  • The Court directed authorities to install properly placed CCTV cameras in all police stations and outposts throughout the state. 
  • The deadline for compliance with this directive was set for 31st March, 2025.
• Binaya Kumar Naik v. Sanjay Kumar Naik (2024): 
  • The case involved an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 
  • The application sought appointment of an arbitrator to resolve a dispute between parties 
  • The dispute concerned copyright infringement 
  • Chief Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh presided over the case 
  • The Court held that disputes related to copyright infringement against a specific person are arbitrable 
  • The judgment confirmed that an arbitrator can be appointed under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act for such disputes
• Odisha State Legal Services Authority v. State of Odisha (2024): 
  • The Court directed the President of the Odisha Council for Medical Registration to appear in person on 05th March 2024 at 2:00 PM. 
  • The appearance was required to seek his opinion on effectively addressing the issue of fake doctors. 
  • The Court emphasized that practicing as a doctor without valid degrees/certificates is a criminal offense. 
  • A suggested solution was to create a comprehensive online database of all medical practitioners in the state for public verification. 
  • This database would help in identifying fake doctors administering allopathic medicines. 
  • The Court noted that the Respondents had not complied with previous orders. 
  • The matter was listed for further hearing on 05th March 2024.
• Union of India v. Md. Ahmed Baig (2024) 
  • The Court examined Rule 39(2) of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, which allows withholding of earned leave encashment if a government servant retires under suspension or with pending disciplinary/criminal proceedings. 
  • In this case, the petitioner-Authority failed to provide evidence that the respondent was under suspension or facing any proceedings on 31st July 2017 (retirement date). 
  • Since these conditions were not met, the authorities had no legal basis to withhold the leave encashment. 
  • The petitioner-Authority also failed to produce an order justifying the recovery of excess payment related to the 3rd MACP benefit. 
  • The Court held that the petitioner-Authority acted improperly by not passing a legal order for deducting the leave encashment amount. 
  • The Court referred to State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava (2013) 12 SCC 210, which stated that withholding leave encashment without statutory backing is not valid.