Who is Justice Sujata Manohar? 

Justice Sujata Vasant Manohar was born on 28^th August 1934. She obtained her education from Lady Margaret Hall in Oxford University and to Lincoln’s Inn in London. 

How was the Career Journey of Justice Sujata Manohar? 

• Justice Sujata Manohar enrolled as an advocate on 14th February 1958 in Bombay. 
• She became assistant government pleader at the city civil court in Bombay during 1970-71. 
•  She was later elevated as an additional judge of Bombay High Court and later secured permanent judgeship. 
• She has served as the Chief Justice at both Bombay High Court and the Kerela High Court. 
• On November 8, 1994 she was appointed as the judge of the Supreme Court of India. 
• She retired from the Supreme Court on 27th August 1999. 
• In 2021 she one among eight outstanding female jurists who was awarded the Ruth Badger Ginsburg Medal of Honor.  
• Justice Manohar was one of the two High Court Judges to be chosen to participate in a course on patent trials held in Beijing under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). 

What are the Notable Judgments of Justice Sujata Manohar? 

• Vishakha & Ors v. State of Rajasthan (1997): 
  • This is the landmark case that laid down guidelines for protection of women in workplace delivered by Justice Sujata Manohar. 
  • The Supreme Court in this case observed that as per Article 14, Article 19 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India every trade, profession, occupation should be safe for working. 
  • The Supreme Court held that, women have fundamental right towards the freedom of sexual harassment at workplace.   
  • The Supreme Court also well-defined the definition of Sexual Harassment.  
  • The main objective of the Supreme Court was to make a gender equal environment at workplace for the woman and provide them safe working experience.
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu v. S. Balasubramaniam (1998): 
  • The central issue was whether the development rebate granted to a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) for assessment years 1960-61 to 1965-66 could be withdrawn under Section 155(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the sale of machinery within eight years of its installation. 
  • The Court concluded that: 
    • A partition in a Hindu Undivided Family does not constitute a "transfer" under Section 2(47) of the Act. 
    • Division of property in a partition is an adjustment of rights among coparceners, not a transfer of ownership. 
  • The subsequent sale of the machinery by the coparceners does not satisfy the condition of transfer "by the assessee" (i.e., the HUF) to a third party.
• Raunaq International Ltd v. IVR Construction Ltd and Ors.(1998): 
  • The Court in this case was dealing with a case where a writ petition was filed challenging the award of contract by the State to any particular tenderer. 
  • The Court held that the petition would be entertained only if there is an allegation of malafides or an allegation that the contract has been entered for collateral purposes. 
  • Where the decision-making process has been structured and the tender conditions set out the requirements, the court is entitled to examine whether these requirements have been considered.   
  • However, if any relaxation is granted for bona fide reasons, the tender conditions permit such relaxation and the decisions is arrived at for legitimate reasons after a fair consideration of all offers, the court should hesitate to intervene. 
  • The Court refused to interfere in this case and refused to pass an interim order.
• Patel Chandulal Trikamial & Ors v. Raori Prabhat Harji (1995): 
  • In the present case the tenancy agreement explicitly required the tenants to use only the demised land for tethering cattle and prohibited encroachment on adjacent land; this obligation was deemed integral to the tenancy terms. 
  • The tenants breached the tenancy terms by encroaching on the adjacent land, violating the conditions stipulated in the rent note. 
  • The court held that the restriction was not merely a personal obligation but a condition directly tied to the enjoyment and use of the demised land as per the tenancy agreement. 
  • The appellate court's decision to decree eviction based on the tenants’ breach of the tenancy terms was upheld, and the High Court's contrary decision was set aside.