Justice Ravindra Bhat's Scholarly Legacy : A Look At His Important Judgments

“Fraternity is not the assimilation of the minority into the majority. To the contrary, it is the celebration of peaceful coexistence of differences that constitutes our national identity." - Justice Ravindra Bhat at a public lecture.

In the world of jurisprudence, there exist those who simply interpret the law, and then there are those exceptional few who redefine it. Justice Ravindra Bhat, who recently retired from the Supreme Court on October 20, 2023, undoubtedly belongs to the latter category.

One cannot begin to explore the legacy of Justice Bhat without addressing the tumultuous judgment in Supriyo v. Union of India. In a decision that sent ripples throughout the nation, the 5-judge bench declined to recognize same-sex marriage. The courtroom, as one could imagine, was charged with emotion, and Justice Bhat who wrote the judgment for the majority found himself at the center of the tempest

His observations regarding the deeply rooted religious nature of marriage rekindled the significance of personal laws and customs in determining its legitimacy and legal status. His verdict emphasized that civil marriage or recognition of any similar relationship can only exist through statutory provisions. At the same time, he acknowledged the discrimination faced by queer couples, empathised with their plight, affirmed their right to choose their partners and directed the State to take steps to end the harassment and discrimination faced by them. Nevertheless, the judgment was a let down for the queer community, who looked up to the Supreme Court for legal recognition of their relationships. It was particularly disappointing for those who viewed the court as a beacon of hope and as a catalyst for change and inclusivity.

Yet, it would be an injustice to confine Justice Bhat's illustrious career to this single, albeit contentious, ruling. His retirement marked the end of a distinguished judicial career that spanned various dimensions of law, human rights, and social justice. Throughout his distinguished career, his legacy has revolved around the advancement of inclusivity, a redefinition of disability rights, and an unyielding commitment to the cause of social justice.

Dissent in EWS case

Since the bulk of the poor belonged to SC/ST/OBC categories, excluding them from the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category is arbitrary and discriminatory, wrote J. Bhat in his iconic dissent in the EWS case.

While Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela Trivedi, and JB Pardiwala upheld the 103rd Constitution Amendment, Justice S Ravindra Bhat wrote a dissenting judgment to strike it down. The then Chief Justice of India UU Lalit concurred with Justice Bhat's view.

At the very outset, Justice Bhat, while regretting his inability to concur with the views expressed by the majority, stated– "This court has, for the first time in the seven decades of the Republic, sanctioned an exclusionary and discriminatory principle. Our Constitution does not speak the language of exclusion. In my considered opinion the amendment is the language of exclusion and violates the principle of justice, and thereby the basic structure."

Maratha quote case

Justice Bhat was also part of the Constitution Bench which struck down the Maratha quota introduced by the Maharashtra enactment. In the same judgment, regarding the interpretation of 102nd Constitution Amendment, Justice Bhat also held (as part of the 3:2 majority on this point) that States have no power to notify Socially and Educationally Backward Classes after the 102nd amendment.

Ending Manual Scavenging

Justice Bhat’s dedication to social justice was evident in his unyielding commitment to end the deplorable practice of manual scavenging. He recently issued directions to both the Union and State Governments, urging the strict implementation of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013.

Without liberty and dignity, all other liberties remain a chimera, Justice Bhat wrote in the judgment, reminding all citizens of their duty to realise fraternity and to end the sufferings of those who are constrained to undertake manual scavenging for generations. 

Mandatory directions to ensure implementation of POSH Act, 2013

Justice Bhat issued a slew of directions to the Union government, and all State/UT governments to ensure the effective implementation of the provisions of the POSH Act, 2013 (Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) read with its Rules.

Significant among them is the mandatory direction issued by the Court that the States and Union Territories must appoint a "District Officer" as per Section 5 of the Act.

Support Persons for victim Support under the POCSO Act

Justice Bhat highlighted the importance of providing support persons to child victims of sexual offenses under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The need for support persons should not be left to the discretion of the parents of the child victims, the Court stated.

Issued directions to HCs for speedy trial

Recently, a bench led by Justice Bhat issued directions to the high courts to ensure a speedy trial and to monitor the disposal of cases, especially those pending for over five years.

Ensuring Accountability in Police Encounters

Concerns about police encounter killings were addressed when Justice Bhat sought on 11th August 2023 sought a "comprehensive affidavit" from the State of Uttar Pradesh on the progress of investigation/prosecution into the police encounter killings which have allegedly taken place in the State since 2017 in the backdrop of the killings of gangster-politician Atiq Ahmed and his brother.

Strict compliance with Arnesh Kumar's guidelines to protect individual liberty

Justice Bhat's commitment to safeguarding individual liberties shone through when in July 2023, he re-emphasized the guidelines laid down by the top court for arrest under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and for other offenses punishable by a maximum jail term of seven years in its 2014 Arnesh Kumar judgment. The Court also directed high courts and police chiefs to issue notifications and circulars in terms of the 2014 judgment to ensure strict compliance.

Took Strong Measures to Ensure Safety in Court Premises

The recent surge of violence within court premises prompted a division bench led by Justice Bhat to issue vital directives to ensure safety within courthouses. He stressed the need to 'preserve the sanctity of the court'. The Court also said that the recent incidents of violence have 'disturbed it to no end'.

Directions to avoid gender stereotyping in adjudication

Justice Ravindra Bhat vehemently criticized the Madhya Pradesh High Court's judgment which asked an accused in a sexual harassment case to get a rakhi tied by the victim.

He added“ Using rakhi tying as a condition for bail, transforms a molester into a brother, by a judicial mandate. This is wholly unacceptable and has the effect of diluting and eroding the offense of sexual harassment. The act perpetrated on the survivor constitutes an offense in law, and is not a minor transgression that can be remedied by way of an apology, rendering community service, tying a rakhi or presenting a gift to the survivor, or even promising to marry her, as the case may be.”

In his judgment, Justice Bhat took a firm stance against gender stereotyping within the legal system. He emphasized that the judiciary must eliminate gender stereotyping and any reasoning or language that diminishes the gravity of the offense and trivializes the survivor must be avoided at all costs.

“E.g. - to say that the survivor had in the past consented to such or similar acts or that she behaved promiscuously, or by her acts or clothing, provoked the alleged action of the accused, that she behaved in a manner unbecoming of chaste or “Indian” women, or that she had called upon the situation by her behavior, etc.”

The handbook recently released by Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud on combating stereotypes has references to Justice Bhat's judgment.

On reformation of prisoneres

"Excluding the relief of premature release to prisoners who’ve served extremely long periods of incarceration not only crushes their spirit and instills despair but signifies society’s resolve to be harsh and unforgiving. The idea of rewarding the prisoner for good conduct is entirely negated", observed the bench comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat while ordering the release of a convict who had spent nearly 26 years in prison. He also added that “Blanket exclusion of certain offenses, from the scope of the grant of remission, especially by way of an executive policy, is not only arbitrary but turns the ideals of reformation that run through our criminal justice system, on its head.”

Upheld the right of a person to choose a life partner

Upholding the fundamental right of a person to choose a life partner, the Supreme Court bench led by Justice Ravindra Bhat held that self-respect marriages as per the Hindu Marriage Act (as applicable in Tamil Nadu) does not require public declaration or solemnisation. He observed, “Such a view is rather simplistic because often due to parental pressure, couples intending to enter into matrimony may not enter into it for the reason of such opposition, hold or give such public declaration, as doing so would imperil their lives and could very likely result to the threat of bodily integrity, or forcible or coerced separation".

Explained principles of criminal liability of companies

His judgment in the DBS Bank India Ltd. v. State NCT of Delhi emphasized that a company's criminal responsibility is recognized when it can be attributed to the actions of individual employees, directors, or officials. J. Bhat reiterated that criminal liability cannot be ipso facto transferred to the transferee entity in cases of amalgamation unless specific penalty proceedings are involved.

Homebuyers to be treated the same as financial creditors

Justice Bhat ensured that homebuyers cannot be treated differently from other "financial creditors" under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) 2016 just because they have secured orders from the authority under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016.

Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) Ruling

Justice Ravindra Bhat' judgment emphasized that DTAA agreements cannot be enforced by a court, authority, or tribunal unless they have been formally notified by the Central Government under Section 90 of the Income Tax Act.

On tax exemptions for trusts, educational institutions

Justice Bhat authored a notable judgment holding that profit-oriented educational institutions cannot claim income tax exemption and reiterated that education must be sole objective for claiming such exemption under the Income Tax Act. In another notable judgment, he held that entities created with the object of advancing general public utility cannot seek exemption under the Income Tax Act 1961 under the head "charitable purposes" if they are engaging in any trade, business, commerce or providing any service for any consideration.

Unilateral fee revision not permissible but won’t terminate the arbitration tribunal’s mandate

Another notable judgment, under Justice Bhat's guidance, addressed the issue of unilateral fee revisions by arbitral tribunals. It concluded that while such revisions are impermissible, they would not result in the automatic termination of an arbitral tribunal's mandate based on ineligibility, as per Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996

Candidates Belonging To Reserved Categories Eligible For General Category Vacancies Based On Merit

The Supreme Court has observed that the candidates belonging to reserved category, are eligible to fill general/open category vacancies also.

Justice Ravindra Bhat, in his concurring opinion, explained the concept of horizontal and vertical reservation- "The quota provided for women, as well as dependents of freedom fighters (DFF) and ex-servicemen, in the present case, are characterized as 'horizontal' whereas the quotas for social groups (SCs, STs, OBCs) are characterized as 'vertical'. The coining of this differential terminology is underscored by the fact that the latter is sanctioned explicitly in Article 16(4), whereas the former is evolved through a process of permissible classification (Articles 14, 16(1)), although such horizontal reservations have been located additionally in Article 15(3)14".

Role in bolstering response to COVID-19

During the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, a 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court, including Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, had issued a series of directives to the Central Government and State Governments to curb the spread of the virus, secure essential supplies, and enhance public awareness.

The Court emphasized the significance of sharing information widely and transparently as a crucial tool in combating the COVID-19 pandemic. It asked for information on vaccine pricing and distribution among states. It also directed the Central Government in collaboration with the States to prepare a buffer stock of oxygen to be used for emergency purposes to ensure supply lines continue to function even in unforeseen circumstances.

It also needs to be mentioned that during the peak of the lockdown, when migrant labourers were forced to flee from cities to their rural homes by foot, Justice Bhat was seen at a Delhi bridge distributing food packets for them.

His contributions to social justice, individual liberties, corporate accountability, child welfare, prison reforms and more have left an indelible mark on the Indian judiciary committed to upholding the principles of justice, equality, and human dignity.

Also Read - Breaking Barriers : How Justice Ravindra Bhat Expanded Scope Of Disability Rights