In the summer of April 2020, at the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic, Justice Dipankar Datta drove down close to 2,000 kms from Calcutta to take charge as Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. Over two and a half years since, on Sunday, the Centre notified Justice Datta's appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court of India. The notification came two and a half months after the SC...
In the summer of April 2020, at the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic, Justice Dipankar Datta drove down close to 2,000 kms from Calcutta to take charge as Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court.
Over two and a half years since, on Sunday, the Centre notified Justice Datta's appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court of India. The notification came two and a half months after the SC collegium recommended his name for elevation on September 26, 2022.
Justice Datta is the son of a former Calcutta High Court Judge, late (J) Salil Kumar Datta and brother-in-law of Justice Amitava Roy, former Supreme Court Judge. After graduating from the University of Calcutta in 1989 and was enrolled as an Advocate in 1989.
He served as a Judge of the Calcutta High Court from June 22, 2006 and was elevated as the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court on April 28, 2020.
During his tenure at the Bombay HC, Justice Datta passed several authoritative judgements while handling the important assignment of civil and criminal PILs, infrastructure projects and environment related petitions, among others. On the administrative side, probably his biggest achievement would be his efforts for a new HC building in the Bandra Kurla Complex on a 30-acre plot.
In January 2021, Justice Datta leading a division bench decided a clutch of petitions and held 'media-trials' during criminal investigation to be an interference with the administration of justice and amounting to 'contempt of court' as defined under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
"The expression "administration of justice" in section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act is sufficiently broad to include civil as well as criminal justice," the judgement read while issuing a slew of directions on how the media must conduct itself.
Just a couple of months later a bench headed by Justice Datta ordered a preliminary CBI inquiry against then sitting State Home Minister and NCP leader Anil Deshmukh in a bunch of PILs alleging corruption. The judgement discussed law on the court's power to direct an investigation while following Lalita Kumari and Vishaka guidelines on the police's duty to register an FIR on the disclosure of a cognisable offence.
Justice Datta's bench played a significant role in ensuring bedridden patients of the State of Ma,harashtra received home vaccination facility. Sitting with Justice GS Kulkarni, the court passed several scathing orders which finally resulted in the state government introducing a mechanism to vaccinate such persons.
However, even according to Justice Datta one of the most challenging PILs was where he was called upon to interpret Articles 171 and 166 of the Constitution of India regarding the Governor's discretion to not nominate members to the Legislative Council as recommended by the Council of Ministers of the State of Maharashtra. The Governor had refused to nominate 12 members to the LC for over a year.
While a court is not empowered to direct the Governor under Article 361, Justice Datta held it was the Governor's duty to communicate his reservations within a reasonable time otherwise the statutory intent would be defeated.
Justice Datta, having ruled on significance of responsible reporting in the Sushant Singh Rajput case, upheld the freedom to the press when his bench stayed Rules 9(1) and 9(3) of the Information Technology (Guidelines For Intermediaries And Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules,2021, mandating digital news media and online publishers to adhere to the "Code of Ethics."
The High Court prima facie observed that the provisions infringed fundamental right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and also went against the substantive provisions of the Information Technology Act 2002.
"Dissent in democracy is vital… Opinion based on criticism reinforces its acceptance in a democratic society. For proper administration of the State, it is healthy to invite criticism of all those who are in public service for the nation to have a structured growth but with the 2021 Rules in place, one would have to think twice before criticising any such personality, even if the writer/editor/publisher may have good reasons to do so without resorting to defamation and without inviting action under any other provision of law," the order read.
Using the same principle from his own judgements, Justice Datta recently asked judges from the subordinate judiciary to not work under the fear of being targeted while deciding bail applications. Speaking at an event he said that rejecting bail applications under fear would be a "travesty and miscarriage of justice."
"We shouldn't criticise judges. We have the duty to ensure that the rule of law is upheld and, in the process, we may also criticise the judgement, but not the judges. Let district judges not work under the severe pressure of being targeted if they grant bail," he said.
And finally on Sunday, after stinging observations last week from the Supreme Court against the Centre delaying judicial appointments, a notification was issued on December 11 to elevate Justice Dipankar Datta as a judge of the highest court in the country.