Introduction

Justice P V Sanjay Kumar was born on 14^th August 1963. He graduated from Nizam College Hyderabad and later secured his law degree from Delhi University in 1988.  

Career 

• Justice P V Sanjay Kumar started his career in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and was attached to the office of his father, P. Ramachandar Reddy. 
• Later, he started practicing independently and represented the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Subordinate Judiciary, Indian Oil Corporation Limited and several other reputed organizations in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.  
• He served as a Government pleader from 2000 to 2003. 
• He was elevated to the post of Additional Judge in Andhra Pradesh where he served till 19^th January 2010. 
• Later, he served as Permanent Judge from 20^th January 2010 to 13th September 2019. 
• He was transferred to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana where he assumed office on 14^th January 2019. 
• Later, he served as the Chief Justice of Manipur High Court where he assumed office on 14^th February 2021.  
• Justice P V Sanjay Kumar was appointed as Judge of the Supreme Court of India on 04th February 2023 and assumed office on 06th February 2023. 

Notable Judgments 

• Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi (2023) 
  • A three judge bench of Supreme Court also consisting of Justice P V Sanjay Kumar stayed the conviction of Rahul Gandhi in the case of defamation filed under Section 499 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 
  • The Court observed that the ramifications of subsection (3) of Section 8 of the Representation of People Act are wide-ranging, as they not only affect the right of the appellant to continue in public life but also affect the right of the electorate, who have elected him, to represent their constituency. 
• Food Corporation of India Executive Staff Union v. Food Corporation of India (2023) 
  • The issue before the Court was whether the retrenchment of services of 21 casual workers was justified and legal. 
  • The Appeal here was filed against the action of the management of the Food Corporation, Patna.  
  • A division bench of Justice Krishna Murari and Justice P V Sanjay Kumar, allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned award. 
• Siby Thomas v. Somany Ceramics Ltd. (2023) 
  • The case relates to dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NIA). 
  • The Court discussed Section 141 of NIA and held that only that person who was in charge of and responsible for conduct of the business of the company as well as the company alone shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished. 
  • The judgment quoted the judgment of Ashok Shewakramani v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2023) where the Court held that merely because somebody is managing the affairs of the company per se he would not become in charge of the conduct of the business of the company or the person responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. 
• Sachin Garg v. State of U.P. (2024) 
  • A bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose and JusticeP V Sanjay Kumar considered the issue of satisfaction of Magistrate at the time of issuing of summons. 
  • The Supreme Court held that the Magistrate should not act in a casual manner while issuing summoning order. The Magistrate should rather be satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused.. 
  • Also, the Court held that there is no need to provide a detailed reasoning at the time of issue of summons, but the Magistrate should record satisfaction that there exists a sufficient ground for proceeding.  
  • Also, the recording of satisfaction should not be in a cryptic manner. 
• Shaik Farid v. Government of A.P. (2012) 
  • A case was filed to consider whether the term of the Members of the Wakf Board under Section 14(1)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Wakf Act, 1995 is co-terminus with their terms as the Members of Parliament and the State Legislative Assembly. 
  • The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that mere expiry of the term of a Member of Parliament or of the State Legislature would not impact his elected Membership of the Wakf Board under Section 14(1)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Act of 1995 and he would be entitled to continue as a Member of the Wakf Board for the full term. 
• Anju Bala v. State of Punjab (2021) 
  • The Punjab and Haryana High Court in this case permitted the petitioner to undergo medical termination of her pregnancy at the second respondent-Institute and directed the Institute to ensure effective measures for termination of the pregnancy at the earliest, considering the advanced stage of her pregnancy. 
  • This order was made on the ground that the woman was having severe congenital malformation of fetal brain and spinal cord.