Who is Justice Sanjay Karol?

Justice Sanjay Karol was born on 23rd August 1961. He belongs to village Garli, district Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. He obtained a degree in law from Himachal Pradesh University.

How was the Career Journey of Justice Sanjay Karol?

• Justice Karol practiced as an advocate in Delhi and other High Courts.
• He was appointed as the Advocate General of the State of Himachal Pradesh in 1998.
• He was conferred the designation of Senior Advocate in 1999.
• Justice Karol was elevated as the Judge of Himachal Pradesh High Court on 8th March 2007. Later he acted as the Acting Chief Justice.
• He became the Chief Justice of Tripura High Court on 9th November 2018. Later he was transferred to the Patna High Court and was appointed as it’s Chief Justice on 11th November 2019.
• He was elevated as the Judge of Supreme Court on 6th February 2023.

What are the Notable Judgments of Justice Sanjay Karol?

• National Highway Projects v. State of Bihar (2022)
  • The Patna High Court in this case held that the State was under an obligation to provide basic amenities to the citizens on the Highways while ensuring basic right to sanitation or basic amenities.
  • The Patna High Court held that right to sanitation comes within the expansive scope of Article 21.
  • The Bench in this case also issued necessary directions in this regard.
• Gene Campaign and Another v. Union of India (2024)
  • In this case a split verdict was given by the Supreme Court on petitions challenging the approval given by the Union Government to release genetically modified mustard.
  • Justice Sanjay Karol in this case held that the question of ban on Ht crops is not warranted in view of the precautionary principle and it is a decision squarely within the domain of policy.
  • The composition of the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) is in accordance with the Rules, to which the challenge of constitutionality, has failed, and in the absence of any change in the Rules, no fault can be found with the same.
  • The decision of the GEAC to grant conditional approval is not vitiated by non-application of mind, or any other principle of law, on part of the body, which itself is an expert body.
• Maharaj Singh & Ors. v. Karan Singh (Dead) Thr. Lrs and Ors. (2024)
  • In this case the defendant had entered into an agreement to sell with the Plaintiff with respect to the suit's property. The same was registered.
  • However, later the same property was sold by the defendant to several other parties (subsequent purchasers).
  • The suit was filed for specific performance by the plaintiff.
  • The issue was whether the specific performance can be ordered without the plea of cancellation of the agreement entered with the subsequent purchasers.
  • The Court in this case followed the precedent laid down in Lala Durga Prasad & Ors v. Lala Deep Chand & Ors. (1953), wherein the Court held that “the proper form of decree is to direct specific performance of the contract between the vendor and the plaintiff and direct the subsequent transferee to join in the conveyance so as to pass on the title which resides in him to the plaintiff.”
  • Further, the Court held that the provisions contained in Section 19 (1)(b) will be applicable here which provide that the specific performance may be enforced against “any person claiming under him by a title arising subsequently to the contract except for a transferee for value who has paid his money in good faith and without notice of the original contract”.
  • In the present facts since the agreement was registered as per Explanation 1 to Section 3 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA) the subsequent transferee shall be deemed to have knowledge of the suit agreement that was duly registered.
  • Thus, the Court concluded that the parties who are subsequent purchasers cannot be said to be purchasers in good faith and hence the agreement of specific performance can be enforced against them.
• Alifiya Husenbhai Kesharaiya v. Siddiq Ismail Sindhi & Ors. (2024)
  • The question to be considered by the Supreme Court was whether a person who has been awarded monetary compensation but has not received it is entitled to file an appeal seeking enhanced compensation as an indigent.
  • The principles related to indigent person were laid down in the case of Union Bank of India v. Khader International Construction & Ors. (2001) as follows:
    • It is an enabling provision for filing of a suit by an indigent person without paying the court fee at the initial stage.
    • If the suit is decreed the amount would be calculated and the it would be recoverable by the State in accordance with who may be ordered to pay the same in the decree.
    • If the suit is dismissed the court fee would be recovered in the form of first charge in the subject matter of the suit.
  • Thus, in case of suits filed by indigent person the payment of Court fee is deferred and this is intended to help the poor litigants who are unable to pay the requisite Court fee to file a suit because of poverty.
  • The Court held in this case that even though she was awarded a sum, the indigency of the person was not extinguished. Hence, the person would be allowed to file appeal even though there is an order of compensation in her favour.
• Bijay Kumar Manish Kumar HUF v. Ashwin Bhanulal Desai (2024)
  • The case involves four different tenancies between the petitioner-landlord and the respondent-tenant in properties located in the Dalhousie area of Kolkata.
  • The petitioner-landlord alleged that the lease was forfeited due to non-payment of rent, and initiated eviction proceedings under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
  • The respondent was seeking for the mesne profits in this case.
  • The Supreme Court noted that while mesne profit is generally awarded after a decree of eviction is passed and stayed, a tenant continuing in possession after their right to occupy is extinguished is liable to compensate the landlord for the period after their right expires.