Who is Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul?

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, a name synonymous with integrity, wisdom, and a profound commitment to justice, has made an indelible mark on the Indian judiciary. Born on 26th December 1958, Justice S K Kaul is a native of Srinagar and hails from a Kashmiri Pandit family. Presently, he is the senior-most judge after the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and a member Supreme Court collegium along with executive chairman of National Legal Services Authority (NALSA). He obtained his LL.B. degree from Faculty of Law, Delhi University in 1982.

Career

• He enrolled as an Advocate with Bar Council of Delhi on 15^th July 1982, and practiced mainly in the Commercial, Civil, Writ, Original and Company jurisdictions of the Delhi High Court and the SC.
• He was Advocate-on-Record (AOR) of the SC from 1987 to 1999 and was designated as a Senior Advocate in December 1999.
• He was appointed Senior Counsel for the Delhi HC and for the Delhi University, was on the Senior Panel of Union of India and served as the Additional Senior Standing Counsel for the Delhi Development Authority (DDA).
• He was elevated as Additional Judge of the Delhi HC on 03rd May 2001 and was appointed as a permanent Judge on 02nd May 2003.
• He served as Acting Chief Justice of Delhi HC for two days from 23rd September 2012 to 25th September 2012.
• He was appointed as the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana HC on 1^st June 2013.
• He was appointed as the Chief Justice of the Madras HC on 26^th July 2014.
• He was appointed as Judge of the SC on 17.02.2017.

What are Notable Cases of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul?

• Retd. Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017):
  • Justice S K Kaul was a part of 9 judges bench which unanimously held that Right to Privacy is intrinsic part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
  • While dealing with this case, Justice Kaul formulated ‘Principle of Proportionality and Legitimacy’ while stating that the concerns expressed on behalf of the Petitioners arising from the possibility of the State infringing the Right to Privacy can be met by the test suggested for limiting the discretion of the State:
    • The action must be sanctioned by law;
    • The proposed action must be necessary in a democratic society for a legitimate aim;
    • The extent of such interference must be proportionate to the need for such interference;
    • There must be procedural guarantees against abuse of such interference.
• Jarnail Singh v. Lacchmi Narain Gupta (2018):
  • The five-judges bench of SC, including former CJI Dipak Misra and Justices Kurian Joseph, R.F. Nariman, S K Kaul, and Indu Malhotra, while addressing the question of whether the ‘creamy layer' within the SC/ST communities should be barred from benefiting from reservation-based promotions passed a unanimous judgment.
  • The bench concluded that there was no need for a larger seven-judge Bench to reconsider the verdict given in the M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2010), which dealt with promotions reserved for SC/ST persons.
  • The court held that “The whole object of reservation is to see that backward classes of citizens move forward so that they march hand in hand with other citizens of India on an equal basis.”
• In Re: Matter of Great Public Importance touching upon the Independence of Judiciary (2019):
  • Justice S K Kaul disposed of the case having allegations of sexual harassment against former CJI Ranjan Gogoi.
  • In this case, a committee headed by former CJI S A Bobde gave a report upon this matter.
• Ratnam Sudesh Iyer v. Jackie Kakubhai Shroff (2021):
  • In this case, Justice S K Kaul authored the judgement stating that the general phrases added as clauses in a contract or Deed of Settlement cannot be regarded as an agreement to alter the legal procedures governed by Section 34 proceedings under Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
• Siddhartha v. State of UP (2021):
  • A three judges bench, namely S K Kaul, Aniruddha Bose, and Krishna Murari, acknowledged the presence of the right to participate in peaceful protests against a legislation.
  • The court observed that “Such kind of occupation of public ways, whether at the site in question or anywhere else for protests is not acceptable and the administration ought to take action to keep the areas clear of encroachments or obstructions”.
• Union of India v. Union Carbide (2023):
  • Justice S K Kaul was a part of bench which dismissed a Curative Petition of Centre asking enhanced compensation from Union Carbide Corporation of Bhopal Gas Tragedy.
  • The bench stated that the matter must be closed down now as “Providing closure to the lis was also an important aspect, which is more so in the context and scenario faced by the Indian Judiciary where delay is almost inevitable”.
• Shilpa Shailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023):
  • A five judges bench consisting of Justice S K Kaul held that a Court, in the exercise of power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950 has the discretion to dissolve the marriage on the ground of its irretrievable breakdown.
  • The bench held that this discretionary power is to be exercised to do ‘complete justice’ to the parties.
• Bar Council of India v. Bonnie FOI Law College (2023):
  • A five judges bench consisting of Justice S K Kaul upheld the validity of All India Bar Examination (AIBE).
  • The bench stated that, “Quality of lawyers is an important aspect and part of administration of justice and access to justice. Half-baked lawyers serve no purpose. It is this quality control, which has been the endeavour of all the efforts made over a period of time”.

What are Important Quotes Said by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul?

• Justice S K Kaul emphasized the stance of democratic values by stating “Pluralism is the soul of democracy. There should be freedom for the thoughts we hate. Freedom of speech has no meaning if there is no freedom of speech. The reality of democracy is to be measured by the extent of freedom and accommodation it extends”.
• While stating the importance of quick disposal of cases Justice S K Kaul quoted that “After all it is the common man for whom the judicial system exists”.
• While emphasizing upon Right to Privacy as part of Artice 21, Justice S K Kaul said that “Privacy is an inherent right. It is thus not given, but already exists”.