Who is Justice U.U. Lalit? 

Justice Uday Umesh Lalit was born on 9th November 1957. He is the 6th Senior Advocate to be directly elevated to the Supreme Court. He served as the 49th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India. 

How was the Career Journey of Justice U.U. Lalit? 

• Justice U.U. Lalit joined the bar in 1983 and practiced as an advocate in the Bombay High Court. 
• He joined the chambers of Former Attorney General of India, Soli Sorabjee from 1986 to 1992. 
• He was designated as the senior advocate in 2004. 
• In 2014, he was appointed as the judge of the Supreme Court. 
• On 10th August 2022, he was appointed as the 49th Chief Justice of India. He is the second person who became the Chief Justice and was directly appointed from the Bar. 
• He retired from the post of Chief Justice on 8th November 2022.

What are the Notable Judgments of Justice U.U. Lalit? 

• Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue (2020) 
  • The Court held that the non-compliance of the provision enunciated under Section 167 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) would be violative of provision under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). 
  • Section 167 (2) of CrPC clearly provides that the investigative agency must collect evidences within the prescribed period failing which the accused can no longer be detained. 
  • Section 167 (2) must be interpreted keeping in mind threefold objectives namely ensuring a fair trial, expeditious investigation and trial, and setting down a rationalized procedure that protects the interests of indigent sections of society. 
• Saurav Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2021) 
  • The Court in this case dealt with the issue of applicability of horizontal and vertical reservations.  
  • In this case an illustration was taken where the horizontal reservation was given to women.   
  • The Court held that the first female candidate allocated in the vertical column for Scheduled Tribes may have secured higher position than the candidate in the unreserved category.  
  • In that event said candidate must be shifted from the category of Scheduled Tribes to Open/General category causing a resultant vacancy in the vertical column of Scheduled Tribes. 
  • Such vacancy must then enure to the benefit of the candidate in the waiting list for Scheduled Tribes-Female.
• Union of India v. V. Sriharan (2016)  
  • This judgment was delivered by a Constitution Bench consisting of Justice HL Dattu, Justice Ibrahim Klifulla, Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice U.U. Lalit. 
  • The Court held that life imprisonment in terms of Section 53 and Section 45 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) means imprisonment for the rest of the life of the convict. 
  • The Court held that in substitution of death sentence a sentence on remission can be awarded that is beyond 14 years. 
• Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017)  
  • There were essentially two issues before the Supreme Court in this case: 
    • Is the practise of instantaneous Triple Talaq an essential practice of Islam? 
    • Does the practice of Triple Talaq violate any fundamental right?  
  • In this landmark judgment the Court by 3:2 majority held that the practice of talaq-e-biddat is manifestly arbitrary and unconstitutional.  
  • Justice Kehar and Justice Nazeer gave the dissenting opinion.   
• Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (2017) 
  • This is the landmark judgment on divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). 
  • The Court held that the minimum period of 6 months stipulated under Section 13B (2) OF HMA is directory and not mandatory. 
  • The Court held that the cooling off period can be waived off only after considering the following factors:  
    • the statutory period of six months specified in Section 13B(2), in addition to the statutory period of one year under Section 13B(1) of separation of parties is already over before the first motion itself;  
    • all efforts for mediation/conciliation including efforts in terms of Order XXXIIA Rule 3 CPC/Section 23(2) of the Act/Section 9 of the Family Courts Act to reunite the parties have failed and there is no likelihood of success in that direction by any further efforts;  
    • the parties have genuinely settled their differences including alimony, custody of child or any other pending issues between the parties;  
    • the waiting period will only prolong their agony.