Who is Justice K V Viswanathan?

Justice K V Viswanathan was born on 26^th May 1966. His father was a public prosecutor in Coimbatore. He did his schooling from Pollachi Arokia Matha Matriculation School.

How was the Career Journey of Justice K V Viswanathan?

• Justice K.V. Viswanathan did his five year integrated law from the Coimbatore Law College, Bharathiyar.
• He enrolled in 1988 with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu.
• He started working as a junior under Advocate K.K. Venugopal and C.S. Vaidyanathan.
• In 2013 he was appointed as the Additional Solicitor General of India.
• While acting as a counsel he was appointed to assist the Court as amicus curiae in several cases.
• He is the 10^th advocate to be directly elevated as the Supreme Court judge.

What are the Notable Judgments of Justice K V Viswanathan?

• Ramji Lal Jat v. State of Rajasthan (2024)
  • In this case candidature of Police Constable in the Rajasthan police was rejected in the light of Rule 24(4) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 on the ground that he had more than two children after 1^st June 2002.
  • The Court cited the judgments of Javed v. State of Haryana (2003) where the Court held that classification disqualifying for having more than two children was non discriminatory and intra vires the Constitution since the objective is to promote family planning.
  • The Court hence in this case refused to interfere.
• Naeem Ahmed v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023)
  • In this case appeal was filed against the order passed by the Delhi High Court where the High Court refused bail to the appellant under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS).
  • The Supreme Court in this case granted bail to the appellant on the ground that the appellant underwent a lot of time in custody granted bail to the appellant.
• Prabhu v. State (2024)
  • The High Court in this case had refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the appellant under Section 417, Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Section 4 of the The Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002 (TNPHW).
  • In order to ascertain if there has been an abetment of suicide under Section 306 of IPC the Court first of all has to ascertain if there was abetment under Section 107 of IPC.
  • The Court held that where the words were uttered in casual manner in the heat of moment between quarrelling people it would not amount to abetment.
  • In order to constitute ‘instigation’ it must be shown that the accused by his acts in a continued course created such circumstances that the accused was left with no option but to commit suicide.
  • Further, the Court also held that no case for cheating under Section 417 of IPC is made out in this case.
• Aditya Khaitan & Ors v. IL and FS Financial Services Limited (2023)
  • In the present case the High Court refused to allow the application holding that the period of 30 days to file the written statement expired on 08.03.2020 and hence the party cannot be allowed to file the written statement.
  • It was contended by the parties that the benefit of the order passed In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (2020) would not be given in this case as the was effective only from 15.03.2020 and the limitation period for the appellants had expired on 08.03.2020.
  • The Supreme Court here cited the order passed by the Court on 08.03.2021 wherein the Court expanded the protection provided by the previous orders by also excluding the period for computing the outer limits within which the Court can condone the delay.
  • Hence, the Supreme Court in this case condoned the delay.
  • The Supreme Court in this case allowed the condonation of delay.
• SBI v. A.G.D. Reddy (2023)
  • The Court in this case held that in a disciplinary proceeding the question of burden of proof would depend upon
    • The nature of the charge and
    • The nature of explanation put forward by the respondent
  • It was held that the burden may be shifted on the respondent depending upon the explanation.
  • The Court also held that there is limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings.