Who is Justice Ruma Pal? 

• Justice Ruma Pal was born on 3rd June 1941 in Kolkata, West Bengal.  She completed her higher education at Presidency College, Kolkata where she studied English Literature. Later she obtained her degree in law from Department of Law, University of Kolkata. Thereafter she went the Oxford University. 

How was the Career Journey of Justice Ruma Pal? 

• Justice Ruma Pal began her judicial career in the Calcutta High Court, where she was appointed as a Judge in 1989. 
• Her legal career progressed quickly, attributed to her sharp intellect, unwavering commitment to constitutional principles, and dedication to justice. 
• During her time at the Calcutta High Court, she gained a strong reputation in civil, constitutional, and commercial law, noted for her precise and clear judgments. 
• In 2000, Justice Pal was elevated to the Supreme Court of India, where she served until her retirement in 2006. 
• Throughout her tenure at the Supreme Court, she emerged as one of the most influential and respected voices on the bench. 
• Justice Pal was known for her fierce independence and steadfast commitment to maintaining the integrity of her position, resisting both political influence and societal pressures. 
• Justice Ruma Pal is the longest serving woman judge of the Supreme Court.

What are the Notable Judgments of Justice Ruma Pal?

• PA Inamdar  v. State of Maharashtra (2004): 
  • This is the landmark case that talks about educational institutions. It laid down the following important points: 
    • Autonomy in Admissions: Unaided private professional institutions, whether minority or non-minority, have the right to devise their own admission procedures, provided these adhere to the principles of fairness, transparency, and non-exploitation. The State cannot enforce quotas or reservation policies on these institutions. 
    • Regulation of Admission and Fee Structure: While institutions can determine their own admission processes and fee structures, they are subject to regulatory oversight to ensure merit-based admissions and the prevention of profiteering or capitation fees. 
    •  Reasonable Restrictions: The setting up of two committees—one for monitoring admissions and another for regulating fee structures—is a reasonable restriction permissible under Article 19(6) and Article 30 of the Constitution. These committees aim to protect student interests and maintain educational standards. 
    • Prohibition on Capitation Fees and Profiteering: Institutions are prohibited from charging capitation fees or engaging in profiteering. The fee structure must be reasonable and aligned with the principles of professional education as a service to society. 
• Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Ors.  (2002): 
  • This case dealt with the meaning of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, 1950. 
  • The Court after detailed analysis of various administrative, financial and functional aspects held that Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) falls within the definition of State. 
  • The Court observed that CSIR was financially, functionally and administratively dominated by the Government and such control was deep and pervasive. 
  • CSIR was ‘created’ by the Government to carry on in an organized manner what was being done earlier by the Department of Commerce of the Central Government. 
  • The court observed that “the assets and funds of CSIR though nominally owned by the Society are in the ultimate analysis owned by the Government.” 
  • Therefore, writ petition was maintainable against the concerned body in this case – Indian Institute of Chemical Biology- which was a unit of CSIR.
• KLE Society v. Dr. RR Patil & Anr (2002): 
  • Respondent No. 1, the Principal of the appellant's college, submitted two voluntary retirement notices citing ill-health. The first notice dated was not acted upon within the three-month notice period, rendering it infructuous. 
  • The second notice requested retirement "at the earliest" but lacked a specified retirement date or a request for curtailment of the three-month notice period. 
  • The appellant's acceptance of the second notice on 20.7.1995 was premature, as it did not comply with the mandatory three-month notice period. 
  • The acceptance also lacked the prior approval of the State Government and verification by the Accountant General, as required under Rule 50(5) of the Triple Benefit Scheme Rules. 
  • The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, affirming that the premature acceptance of the respondent’s voluntary retirement violated procedural requirements. 
  • The Court also ruled that the respondent’s cessation from service was involuntary and hence amounted to a removal under the law. 
• Satyam Infoway Ltd v. Siffynet Solutions Pvt Ltd (2004): 
  • The appellant, Satyam Infoway, registered multiple domain names like www.sifynet.net and www.sifymall.com, claiming a wide reputation for the coined term "Sify."  
  • The respondent, starting internet marketing under similar domain names in 2001, refused the appellant's demand to cease usage and transfer the domains. 
  • The appellant initiated a legal action alleging passing off its business and services. The City Civil Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of the appellant, citing prior usage, established reputation, and potential confusion among the public due to similar domain names. 
  • The Supreme Court noted the respondent's doubtful explanation for adopting "Sify," the appellant’s established reputation, and the association of the name with the appellant's services. 
  • It concluded that the respondent was likely trying to cash in on the appellant’s goodwill, supporting the City Civil Court’s decision.