Rohinton Fali Nariman

Introduction

Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman is a distinguished jurist and a former judge of the Supreme Court of India. Born on 13^th August 1956, Justice Nariman hails from a family with a rich legal legacy; his father, Fali Sam Nariman, is a renowned senior advocate and former Attorney General of India. Justice R F Nariman's illustrious legal career is marked by his erudition, integrity, and commitment to upholding the principles of justice.

How was the Career Journey of Rohinton Nariman?

• Justice Rohinton Nariman achieved his Bachelor of Laws degree at the Campus Law Centre of the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, securing the 2nd position in his graduating class.
• Subsequently, he pursued his Master of Laws degree at Harvard Law School in the academic year 1980–81.
• He also enrolled into Bar Council of India in 1979.
• Chief Justice Manepalli Narayana Rao Venkatachaliah designated him as Senior Counsel in 1993 when he was just 37 years old.
• He was appointed the Solicitor General of India on 23rd July 2011.
• He assumed the role of a SC judge on 7th July 2014, marking the fifth instance of a direct elevation from the Bar to the SC.
• His tenure came to an end when he reached the mandatory retirement age of 65 on 12^th August 2021.

What are the Notable Judgments of Rohinton F Nariman?

• Reliance Natural Resources Limited v. Reliance Industries Limited (2010):
  • In this corporate dispute, Justice Rohinton Nariman appeared as a Senior Counsel for Reliance Industries Limited.
  • This judgment had significant implications for the natural gas supply dispute between the Ambani brothers.
• Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017):
  • In this historic case, Justice Rohinton Nariman was part of the 5 judge-bench which 3:2 majority declared the practice of instant triple talaq unconstitutional and violative of Muslim women's rights.
  • The judgment marked a significant step towards gender justice and equality.
  • In this case, Justice Rohinton Nariman held that “Triple Talaq is instant and irrevocable, it is obvious that any attempt at reconciliation between the husband and wife by two arbiters from their families, which is essential to save the marital tie, cannot ever take place”.
  • He also observed, “A practice does not acquire the sanction of religion simply because it is permitted”.
• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017):
  • In this seminal case, Justice Nariman was part of the nine-judge bench that declared the right to privacy as a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
  • The judgment laid down the foundation for safeguarding individual privacy in the digital age.
  • Justice Rohinton Nariman emphasized on putting a reasonable restriction on the right to privacy he stated that the recognition of such right in the fundamental rights chapter of the Constitution is only a recognition that such right exists notwithstanding the shifting sands of majority governments.
    • Statutes may protect fundamental rights; they may also infringe them.
  • In case any existing statute or any statute to be made in the future is an infringement of the inalienable right to privacy, SC would then be required to test such statute against such fundamental right and if it is found that there is an infringement of such right, without any countervailing societal or public interest, it would be the duty of this Court to declare such legislation to be void as offending the fundamental right to privacy.
• Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018):
  • Justice Nariman was part of the bench that delivered a landmark judgment allowing the entry of women of all age groups into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala.
  • The judgment upheld the principles of equality and struck down the discriminatory practice that prohibited women of menstruating age from entering the temple.
• Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018):
  • The SC, with Justice Rohinton Nariman as part of the bench, struck down the adultery law, Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) stating that it was discriminatory against women.
• Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018):
  • A 5-judge bench comprising of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Rohinton Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, Dr. D Y Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, held Section 377 of IPC unconstitutional to the extent it criminalized consensual sexual intercourse between gay adults.
  • Justice Rohinton Nariman also observed that homosexuality is not mental illness under Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.
  • He cited Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law in relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender of Identity during adjudicating Section 377 unconstitutional.