Rohinton Nariman

Term

7th Jul 2014 - 12th Aug 2021

Justice Nariman has an impeccable academic record. He graduated from the Sri Ram College of Commerce, and then pursued his LLB from Faculty of Law, University of Delhi where he was ranked 2nd in the University. In 1980-81, he pursued his LLM from Harvard Law School, where he penned his thesis on ‘Comparison between India and US Constitutional Law.’

Justice Nariman joined the Bar as an advocate in 1979, and has been declared as one of the ten best lawyers of his time. In 1993, was designated as a Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court of India at the young age of 37. While appointing him, then Hon’ble Chief Justice Venkatachalaiah amended the rules as the minimum age for being made Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court was 45. He has been practicing law for the last 35 years and has over 500 Reported Supreme Court Judgements to his credit.

Justice Nariman is an expert in Comparative Constitutional Law and Civil Law. He is part of the Governing Board of the Gujarat Law School, Ahmedabad, and also a member of the Mediation Committee of the Supreme Court of India. He has set up the Supreme Court Welfare Trust which works for the welfare of lawyers and encourages young talent.

He was appointed the Solicitor General of India in 2013, and in 2014, was elevated as Judge, Supreme Court of India. He is only the 5th Supreme Court judge to be elevated directly from the Bar, and is set to retire in 2021.

Notable Judgements:

Justice Nariman was part of a Division Bench of the Supreme Court along with the Justice Nariman in the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, where they declared Section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000 as unconstitutional. The Law allowed the Indian Police to arrest anyone accused of posting electronic messages which causes annoyance or inconvenience. The Bench struck down the provision, stating it was ‘open-ended, undefined and vague.’

In another landmark verdict, Justice Nariman had held that plea of death convict for a review of the Supreme Court’s judgment upholding death penalty should be heard in open court by a bench of at least 3 judges. Prior to that all review petitions were decided in chambers without presence of advocates.In another landmark verdict, Justice Nariman had held that plea of death convict for a review of the Supreme Court’s judgment upholding death penalty should be heard in open court by a bench of at least 3 judges. Prior to that all review petitions were decided in chambers without presence of advocates.In another landmark verdict, Justice Nariman had held that plea of death convict for a review of the Supreme Court’s judgment upholding death penalty should be heard in open court by a bench of at least 3 judges. Prior to that all review petitions were decided in chambers without presence of advocates.In another landmark verdict, Justice Nariman had held that plea of death convict for a review of the Supreme Court’s judgment upholding death penalty should be heard in open court by a bench of at least 3 judges. Prior to that all review petitions were decided in chambers without presence of advocates.

Justice Nariman was also part of the five Judge Bench which declared triple talaq as void, illegal and unconstitutional in the case of ShayaraBano v. Union of India in the ratio 3:2. Justice Nariman was part of the Majority Judgement along with Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice UU Lalit who struck down the practice. The minority judgement asked the Parliament to make a law in this regard. A significant portion of this judgement was Justice Narimans affirmation that manifest arbitrariness can be a ground for striking down a law.

He was also part of the Nine Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Justice KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India, which unanimously declared the right to privacy as a Fundamental Right, integral to Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

FEEDBACK



Thank you for your feedback!