Introduction

Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia is a second generation legal professional. He graduated from Allahabad University in 1981 and completed his master's in modern history in 1983. Justice Dhulia completed his bachelor's in law in 1986.

Career

• Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia joined the Bar at Allahabad High Court in the year 1986.
• He was designated as Senior Advocate in June 2004 at High Court of Uttarakhand.
• After the creation of the new State of Uttarakhand, Justice Dhulia became its First Chief Standing Counsel and was later appointed as State Additional Advocate General.
• Justice Dhulia was elevated as a permanent Judge of Uttarakhand High Court on 01st November 2008.
• He was elevated as Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court on 07th January 2021. He is the second judge to be elevated from the Uttarakhand High Court.
• He was elevated as the Judge of Supreme Court on 7th May 2022.

Notable Cases

Recent Judgments

• Chander Bhan (d) Through LR Sher Singh v. Mukhtiar Singh and other (2024)
  • This judgment authored by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia talked about the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA).
    • Note that as per Section 1 of TPA, the provisions of TPA are not applicable in the States of Bombay, Delhi and Punjab (subject to certain exceptions).
  • The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even if the provisions of TPA are not applicable in some states yet Section 52 of TPA would be applicable as it is based on principles of justice, equity and good conscience.
• Raj Reddy Kallem v. State of Haryana and others (2024)
  • This judgment is on compounding of offences under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NIA).
  • It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that courts cannot compel the complainant in a cheque dishonour case to give consent for the compounding of the complaint merely because the accused has compensated the complainant.
  • The Court also observed that mere repayment of the amount cannot mean that the appellant is absolved from the criminal liabilities under Section 138 of the NI Act.
• M/S A.K. Sarkar and Co v. State of West Bengal (2024)
  • This case is related to Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).
  • In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that Article 20(1) does not prohibit the Court from imposing lesser sentence than was applicable at the time of commission of offence.
  • The prohibition under Article 20(1) is limited to not subjecting a person to a higher sentence than what was applicable at the time of commission of crime.
• Mohd. Abaad Ali v. Directorate of Revenue Prosecution Intelligence (2024)
  • In this case the issue before the Justice Supreme Court was whether the delay in filling application against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC be condoned under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 (LA).
  • The Court in this case observed that Section 29 of LA provides that Section 5 of LA would also be applicable in case of special laws to the extent that it is not excluded by the special law.
  • The Court in this case held that there is no exclusionary provision under Section 378 of CrPC and hence the application under Section 5 of LA can be entertained and the delay can be condoned.
• Chandan v. State (Delhi Admin.) (2024)
  • In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court talked about ‘motive’ as a circumstance to convict the accused.
  • The Court held that where ocular testimony inspires confidence mere absence of motive will not impinge on the testimony of a reliable eyewitness.
• Raju Krishna Shedbalkar v. State of Karnataka (2024)
  • The FIR in this case is primarily related to criminal breach of trust and cheating. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in order to make out an offence under cheating the intention to cheat or deceive should be present right from the beginning.

Landmark Judgments

• Rakesh Raman v. Kavita (2023):
  • In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court through Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia held that a marriage that has broken down irretrievably spells cruelty on both sides.
  • Therefore, where there is complete breakdown of all meaningful bond, continuation of separation and absence of cohabitation the continuation of marriage will amount to cruelty and be a ground of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).
• Aishat Shifa v. State of Karnataka (2023)
  • This case dealt with the issue of hijab ban. It was a 2-judge bench judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, and a split verdict was delivered.
  • Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia held in this case that restrictions on the wearing of hijab also goes against our constitutional value of fraternity and human dignity.
  • It was held that “Under our Constitutional scheme, wearing a hijab should be simply a matter of Choice. It may or may not be a matter of essential religious practice, but it still is, a matter of conscience, belief, and expression. If she wants to wear hijab, even inside her classroom, she cannot be stopped, if it is worn as a matter of her choice, as it may be the only way her conservative family will permit her to go to school, and in those cases, her hijab is her ticket to education”.
• Veena Vadini Teachers Training Institute v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors (2023)
  • The Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case held that “though reservation in favour of residents is permissible, yet reservation to the extent of 75% of the total seats makes it a wholesale reservation, which has been held in Pradeep Jain to be unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI)”.
• Immamudin v. State of Rajasthan (2022)
  • The division bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul granted bail to the accused who was in custody for offences punishable under Sections 366, 376, 384, 323, 328, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
  • There were three factors considered by the Court:
    • Living relation agreement;
    • Joint petition filed by parties seeking police protection, specifically as an inter-faith couple;
    • Petitioner in custody for 9 months.
• Asif Iqbal v. State of Assam (2021)
  • The division bench of Gauhati High Court comprising of Chief Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, and Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak, directed to connect CCTV cameras of Hospitals to the nearest Police Station to put a check on increasing instances of violence against medical practitioners amid Covid-19.
• Divya Pharmacy v. Union of India (2018)
  • A Single Judge Bench of Uttarakhand High Court comprising of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia held that the petitioner (Divya Pharmacy) was bound to comply with the SBB’s direction to share profits with the local and indigenous communities.
• State of Jharkhand v. Shiv Shankar Sharma (2022)
  • The 3-judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia held that the petitioner should come to the Court with clean hands and if this is not the case the petition will be dismissed at the threshold.