HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAROSH HOMI KAPADIA
THE 38th CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
ASSUMED OFFICE – 12TH MAY 2010
APPOINTED BY – MRS. PRATIBHA PATIL, HON’BLE PRESIDENT OF INDIA
PRECEDED BY - MR. JUSTICE K.G. BALAKRISHNAN
HELD OFFICE TILL – 28TH SEPTEMBER 2012
PERSONEL DETAILS
BORN – 29TH SEPTEMBER 1947
SPOUSE – SHAHNAZ
Early life
S. H. Kapadia belonged to a gentle lower middle-class Parsi family from the Khetwadi-Girgaum region of Bombay. His father was a clerk in a defence establishment, his mother a homemaker. Kapadia completed his BA and LLB and immediately began working. Higher education would have been a luxury. He acknowledged his humble beginnings in a letter he wrote to Justice V R Krishna Iyer recently. “I come from a poor family. I started my career as a class IV employee and the only asset I possess is integrity...” he said. He joined Gagrat & Co, a law firm as a clerk and later, went to work for highly respected labour lawyer Feroze Damania. Soon after, the family moved to Andheri, Mumbai. He married Shahnaz with whom he to has one son and a daughter .
The young Sarosh may not have been rich but what he did possess was ambition and determination to become a judge. He became counsel for the income tax department in 1974, aged 27. He also appeared for the then Bombay Municipal Corporation in matters concerning rateable value and octroi. He represented the Maharashtra government and several public sector undertakings (PSUs) until he was appointed a high court judge. As a judge of the Bombay High Court, he decided matters ranging from environmental to banking, M&As, industrial disputes, taxation and so on, but developed a reputation for his expertise on commercial and tax law.
The best thing that ever happened to him was the stock scam of 1999 involving broker Ketan Parekh. He was appointed judge of the special court established under the Trial of Offences Relating to Transaction in Securities Act in 1999. He played an important role in the proceedings of the Joint Parliamentary Committee constituted to investigate the stock scam.
On August 5, 2003, he was appointed Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court and in December of that year, he was elevated to the Supreme Court, thus serving only a very short tenure as chief justice of a high court.
In the Supreme Court, Kapadia delivered some landmark judgements which included a decision relating to succession of property in April 30, 2005 in which he ruled out the possibility of conducting the DNA test.
He was part of the three-member Bench that decided income tax case of Rashtriya Janata Dal chief Lalu Prasad. The verdict went in favour of Prasad but Justice Kapadia gave a dissenting judgement saying the income tax department should have filed an appeal against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) order.
There are some controversies that, however, are inexplicable. Justice A P Shah of the Delhi High Court (who was part of the bench that gave the judgment on homosexuals’ rights) was to have been elevated to the Supreme Court. Kapadia was the chief dissenting voice in the five-member collegium that decides who should or should not move up to the Supreme Court. Some say this was because of rivalry from the days when he and Shah were judges in the Bombay High Court. Others say Kapadia was disapproving of two judgments Shah had delivered as Chief Justice of the Madras High Court.
Now, the biggest professional challenge for the man who has spent his entire life working towards becoming a judge is to decide who should scrutinise the Chief Justice of India and whether he should come under the purview of the Right to Information Act. This has far-reaching implications for both law and justice.
Kapadia is conscious that he has to uphold both equity and fairness. On the issue of honour killings, he has said justice by khaps (local communities) is a social not a legal matter. On the other hand, throughout his life, he has ruled in favour of tribals and the dispossessed.
India’s legal establishment is weighed down by work, and central issues like police reform have temporarily taken a back seat. Crusading judges have their drawbacks, but Kapadia has the advantage of being utterly focussed. Hopefully, the legal system will benefit from this.
Career
S. H. Kapadia started his career as a class IV employee. He later became a law clerk with a lawyer's office in Mumbai. Kapadia joined Gagrat & Co, a law firm, as a clerk and later went on to work with Feroze Damania who was a highly respected "firebrand" labour lawyer . However his zeal to achieve inspired him to join the legal profession and he became an advocate. He joined as an advocate in the Bombay High Court on 10 September 1974.
He was appointed as an additional judge of the Bombay High Court on 8 October 1991 and on 23 March 1993 he was appointed as a permanent judge. On 5 August 2003 he became the Chief Justice of the Uttaranchal High Court. On 18 December 2003 he was appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court. On 12 May 2010 he was sworn in as the Chief Justice of India by the President Pratibha Patil. He is due to retire on 29.09.2012 (F.N.)
Personal life
S. H. Kapadia is married to Shahnaz and has a son who is a Chartered Accountant and a daughter. He has keen interest in Economics, Public Finance, Theoretical Physics and Hindu and Buddhist Philosophies.Sarosh He also has many hobbies, one of them is going for walks. As a young man, Kapadia used to drag his younger brother (now a retired banker) all over Mumbai for walks that would, almost invariably, end at Narayan Dabholkar Road, the breezy avenue off Napean Sea Road where high court judges have their apartments. The two brothers would look at the buildings and young Sarosh would say: “One day, the name on that nameplate will be mine”. His wish was granted in October 1991, when he was made a judge of the Bombay High Court.
Notable judgments
On March 3, 2011, the three member bench headed by Kapadia, quashed the appointment of Chief Vigilance Commissioner , P.J. Thomas, made by the High Power Committee comprising Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Home Minister P. Chidambaram and Leader of Opposition Sushma Swaraj (dissenting). The judgment caused severe embarrassment for the Government and made Manmohan Singh admit the error in appointment. While the judgement was welcomed by most media pundits , some experts have expressed concerns of miscarriage of justice. Former IAS officer, S. M. Murshed writes, 'the ratio decidendi of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is a bit difficult to comprehend, for, in the last analysis, the entire case against Thomas rested on a solitary, misconceived FIR which was filed as an afterthought and which should never have been filed. Given the facts, Manmohan Singh did no substantive wrong and he did not commit any error (in appointing Thomas).He was part of the three-member Supreme Court bench that decided a PIL filed by two NDA leaders seeking the cancellation of bail of Rashtriya Janata Dal chief Lalu Prasad and his wife and former Bihar Chief Minister Rabri Devi for their interference in the judicial process in the disproportionate assets (DA) and Income Tax cases against them. The verdict went in favour of Prasad but Justice Kapadia gave a dissenting judgement saying the income tax department should have filed an appeal against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) order. On the issue of promotion of judge Munni Lal Paswan, he said, while competence and suitability of two other judges, who were promoted to the post of Special Judge along with Paswan, were determined on the basis of annual confidential report (ACRs) and inspecting the judges' reports, the criteria was not applied while promoting Paswan who had been found to be slow in disposing cases.
Justice Kapadia delivered a landmark judgement relating to succession of property in April 30, 2005 in which he ruled out the possibility of conducting the DNA test.
No comments:
Post a Comment