Who is Justice Manoj Misra? 

Justice Manoj Misra was born on 2nd June 1965. He obtained his law degree from University of Allahabad in 1988.  

How was the Career Journey of Justice Manoj Misra? 

• Justice Manoj Misra has been practicing in matters related to Civil, Revenue, Criminal and Constitutional law since the year 1988 in the High Court of Allahabad. 
• Later he was appointed as an Additional Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 21st November 2011. 
• On 6^th August 2013 he was appointed as the Permanent judge in the Allahabad High Court. 
• Finally on 6^th February 2023 he was elevated as the judge of Supreme Court. 
• He will retire on 1^st June 2030. 

What are the Notable Judgments of Justice Manoj Misra? 

• Sita Soren v. Union of India (2024)
  • This is a seven-judge bench landmark judgment where the Court dealt with the issue of legislative immunity for lawmakers facing bribery charges. 
  • The Supreme Court in this case overturned the much controversial ratio laid down in the case of P.V. Narsimha Rao v. State (1988). The controversial ratio laid down was: 
    • Members of Parliament (MP) and the State Legislature (MLA) are free of all constraints about what they say in the Parliament or State Legislative Assembly by virtue of Parliamentary Privileges under Article 105 and Article 194 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). 
    • Also, it was held that an MP and MLA who accepta bribe and does not cast his vote can be prosecuted whereas the one who accepts bribe and vote is granted immunity.  
  • The Court laid down the following points: 
    • Unlike United Kingdom, India does not have ‘ancient and undoubted’ privileges which were vested after struggle between Parliament and King. 
    • Whether a claim to privilege conforms to the parameters of the Constitution is amenable to judicial review. 
    • Any claim to immunity must fulfill the twofold test: 
      • It must be tethered to the collective functioning of the House. 
      • It is necessary to the discharge of the essential duties of a legislator. 
    • The purpose of the privileges is to sustain an environment in which debate and discussion can take place. This is destroyed when an act of bribery takes place. 
    • Bribery cannot be rendered immune by the virtue of Parliamentary privileges.  
• In Re Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and The Indian Stamp Act 1899 (2023) 
  • A 7-judge Bench in this case laid down the law on the enforceability of an unstamped arbitration agreement. 
  • The issue was whether the arbitration agreement would be unenforceable and invalid if the underlying contract is not stamped.  
  • The Court held that Section 35 of the Stamp Act is unambiguous, and it renders the unstamped instrument inadmissible and not void.   
  • The nonpayment of stamp duty is characterized as a curable defect.  
  • The Court held the following 
    • Agreements which are not stamped or are inadequately stamped are inadmissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Stamp Act. Such agreements are not rendered void or void ab initio or unenforceable.  
    • Non-stamping or inadequate stamping is a curable defect.   
    • An objection as to stamping does not fall for determination under Sections 8 or 11 of the Arbitration Act. The Court concerned must examine whether the arbitration agreement prima facie exists.   
    • Any objections in relation to the stamping of the agreement fall within the ambit of the arbitral tribunal.   
    • The decisions in NN Global Mercantile (P) Ltd v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. (2021) and SMS Tea Estates (P) Ltd. v. Chandmari Tea Co. (P) Ltd., (2011), were overruled. Further, Paragraphs 22 and 29 of Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. v. Coastal Marine Constructions & Engg. Ltd., (2019) were overruled to that extent.
• Cox and Kings Limited v. SAP India Private Limited (2023)  
  • The Supreme Court Constitution Bench was tasked with determining the applicability and statutory basis of the 'Group of Companies doctrine' in proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). 
  • Highlighting variations in its application, the Court questioned its statutory source. 
  • The major questions revolved around interpreting Sections 8 and 45 of the A& C Act and the validity of the doctrine. 
  • The Court determined that while the doctrine aids in deciphering parties' intentions, it should be subsumed under Section 7(4)(b) for certainty. 
  • It concluded that the phrase "claiming through or under" does not confer party status, and the Chloro Controls India (P) Ltd v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. (2013) was erroneous. 
  • The doctrine's application should be aligned with parties' mutual intent and statutory provisions, ensuring systematic legal development.
• MK Ranjitsinh And Othrs v. Union of India (2024) 
  • A 3-judge Bench of Supreme Court in this case held that the right to be free from adverse effects of climate change is a fundamental right. 
  • The issue here was regarding the protection of Great Indian Bustard. 
  • The Court held that Articles 14 (equality before law and the equal protection of laws) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution are important sources of right against adverse effects of climate change.