Spotlight On Recent Appointments To Supreme Court - Justice Sanjay Karol

We traced the judicial career of Justice Pankaj Mithal in Part 1 and of Justice Dipankar Datta in Part II. In this third part, we offer a glimpse into the judicial philosophy of Justice Sanjay Karol.

Justice Sanjay Karol was born on August 23, 1961. He was appointed as Supreme court judge on February 6 and will retire on August 22, 2026. He will have a tenure of just over three years.

Justice Karol is former chief justice of Patna and Tripura High Courts. He also served as judge and Acting CJ of Himachal Pradesh High Court.

Karol was born in Shimla. He passed from St. Edwards School, Shimla and graduated with History Honours from Government College, Sanjauli. Karol obtained a law degree from Faculty of Law, Himachal Pradesh University and in 1983 he was enrolled as an advocate.

He practised in various courts, including the Supreme Court in constitutional, taxation, corporate, criminal and civil matters. He appeared as counsel in the Inter-State Water dispute (BBMP Project) in the Supreme Court. He served as the Advocate General of Himachal Pradesh from 1998 to 2003. Designated as Senior Advocate in 1999, he remained on the senior panel for central government in the Supreme Court.

He was elevated as a Judge of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, on March 8, 2007. He assumed charge of the office of the Acting Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh from April 25, 2017 and remained on the post till October 5, 2018. He took oath as the Chief Justice of Tripura High Court on November 14, 2018. He served as the Chief Justice of Patna High Court from November 11, 2019 to February 6, 2023.

Livelaw offers a glimpse of the judicial philosophy of Justice Sanjay Karol under the following selective subjects.

Environment Law

In Court on its own motion vs State of H.P. and others (August 7, 2018), Justice Sanjay Karol, sitting with Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, intervened to restore the age-old water body falling within the municipal limits of Shimla town, popularly known as Chadwick Fall. The Department of Tourism has earmarked Chadwick Fall to be a place of heritage and a centre of attraction for tourists. Finding the condition of the water body as pathetic and worse than a drain, the bench headed by him held that right to life, as contemplated under Article 21, includes having a hygienic environment as an integral facet of healthy life. Right to life with human dignity, in the absence of a humane and healthy environment, would only become illusionary, he held. The State as a trustee is under a legal duty to protect the natural resources, he observed. The Chadwick Falls has got its natural beauty, which needs to be protected and preserved for posterity, he held. He directed the authorities to clean up, maintain and develop the water body so as to restore its pristine glory.

As Chief Justice of Patna High Court, he showed similar concern when a bench comprising him and Justice Partha Sarthy directed the circle officers of Patna, Magadh, and Saran divisions (having control of over 14 districts) to remove encroachments on water bodies within four weeks.

Scheduled Tribe status

In Vijaylakshmi vs State of H.P. and Others, Acting CJ Sanjay Karol, held on November 13, 2017, that a person who does not belong to a Scheduled Tribe or a Scheduled Caste category by birth, simply by virtue of marrying a person belonging thereto cannot gain the status of that particular caste or tribe. Justice Karol did not find any illegality with the action of the authorities whereby ST certificate issued in her favour was cancelled and employment obtained by her on the strength of said certificate was terminated. The appeal against this order is currently pending before the Supreme Court.

Clarity On Freebies

In Kuldeep and Others vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, the petitioner had challenged the action of state government in amending the rules to empower the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation and Employment and Conditions of Service) Board to make assistance in shape of goods, such as bicycle, induction heater/solar cooker with utensils, solar lamp, or washing machine, in place of cash to female building workers. The petitioner argued that Clause (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 22 and Section 62 of the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 should be read contextually, restricting the rule making power only to the extent of providing financial assistance and not making any provision for distribution of goods. The act of the State in the distribution of goods, which are in the nature of freebies in an arbitrary manner, was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, it was contended before the court.

Acting Chief Justice Sanjay Karol, sitting with Justice Sandeep Sharma, held on July 13, 2017, that the State can make rules for making provisions and improvement of such other welfare measures and facilities as may be prescribed. He held that the provisions of the Act have to be construed liberally so as to advance the object of principles of socially beneficial legislation. To make the life of a female building worker convenient and comfortable is only in consonance with the right to live life with dignity, full of health and happiness in consonance with Article 21 fulfilling the constitutional goal of social justice.

Ensuring Accountability

On December 7 last year, the bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Partha Sarthy imposed Rs. 5000 costs on the Vice Chancellors of Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Magadh University, and Veer Kunwar Singh University as they failed to furnish details sought by the court seeking their explanation regarding a delay in the declaration of results in their respective universities.

Judicial Review

In Court on its own motion vs State of H.P. and others, Acting CJ Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Sharma, held that the State’s policy of excluding married daughters and granddaughters of a freedom fighter, unlike sons and grandsons, from the benefit of reservation in jobs was discriminatory. The bench found the stand adopted by the State to be absolutely archaic and disappointing. “It is certainly not in tune with the changing times. In fact, it is out of sync with the constitutional values and principles. Predominant mindset of male chauvinism is all pervading,” the bench observed.

In Dr. Ashish Kumar Sinha and others v. The Union of India and others along with connected matters, Chief Justice Karol, sitting along with Justice S. Kumar, on October 21 last year, declared certain provisions of the Bihar Municipal (Amendment) Act, 2021 which amended the State’s 2007 Act, as unconstitutional while holding that certain amendments carried out in the 2007 Act are contrary to the 74th Constitutional Amendment as they placed hurdles in the achievement of self-governance.

In Sunil Kumar v The State of Bihar and others, the bench of Chief Justice Karol and Justice Sanjay Kumar held that the reservation of seats for Other Backward Classes (OBC) and Extremely Backward Classes in urban local body elections were illegal. The bench held that the quotas had failed two of the three tests laid down by the Supreme Court in Vikas Kishanrao Gawali v State of Maharashtra and Others to determine the groups’ political backwardness.

In Tripura People’s Front v State of Tripura, decided on August 7, 2019, Chief Justice Sanjay Karol, sitting with Justice S.Talapatra, held that the right, be it of freedom of speech and expression or peaceful assembly, can be abridged only in accordance with the procedure established by law. The reasonability of the restriction in exercising such a right is a matter which squarely falls within the power of judicial review, he held.

In this case, the Tripura police invoked Section 78 of the Tripura Police Act, 2007 and sought to regulate the right of freedom of expression and of peaceful assembly of the petitioner. The police denied permission to hold a meeting to mark the International Day of World Indigenous People’s Day. The bench held that the communication of rejection by the Tripura Police to the petitioner’s request for permission did not meet the test of the conditions imposed under Section 78(3) of the Act. The bench quashed the rejection and directed the Police to reconsider the petitioner’s application afresh, and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, and more specifically in accordance with the settled principles of law as laid down in Ramlila (2012) and Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan cases (2018), as decided by the Supreme Court.

Prisoners’ Rights

In Law Foundation v State of Bihar, the division bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice S. Kumar got the state government to disclose in September last year that separate cells have been earmarked in jails for lodging members of the transgender community. The bench issued further directions to the State to ensure that the guidelines circulated by the Union Government in relation to housing the members of the transgender community in jails are implemented in letter and spirit.

PILs

In Mukesh Kumar v The State of Bihar, the bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice S.Kumar directed the Senior SP of Muzaffarpur to file his personal affidavit in connection with the case pertaining to loss of vision of several persons during cataract operation at a camp organized by a Clinical Establishment in the area. The bench ordered the officer to ensure that the investigation is expedited and completed at the earliest, and file his personal affidavit mentioning the latest status before the next date of hearing. The bench also directed the management of the Clinical Establishment concerned to file its reply, indicating compliance of all the statutory provisions under Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 and specifically, pertaining to the fulfilment of the standards as defined under the Bihar Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Rules, 2013.

In Bihar Tribal Rights Forum v Union of India, the bench headed by Chief Justice Karol directed the Bihar Chief Secretary to take a decision regarding the establishment of Tribal Research Institute for the welfare of the tribes. The guidelines issued by the Union Ministry of Tribal Welfare provide for setting up such an institute. The bench pointed out that the funding for the schemes to be undertaken by the institute is by way of 100 per cent grant-in-aid of the Union Government. The bench underlined that at least 19 States had already set up such establishment. The challenges in the field of socio-economic development of tribal are critical and absolutely imperative for achieving the constitutional goals, the bench held.

In Dinesh v The State of Bihar and others, the bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice S.Kumar dismissed a plea seeking removal of Bihar’s Advocate General Lalit Kishore on the ground that Article 165(3) of the Constitution stood violated. The bench observed that there is no obligation upon the AG of a state to submit his resignation on the resignation of the Chief Minister with Council of Ministers or on the expiry of the term/dissolution of the Legislative Assembly.

In Ramakant Sharma v The State of Bihar and others, the bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice S.Kumar dealt with a plea highlighting the apathy on the part of the State in providing basic infrastructure and facilities for the advocates practicing in various courts within the state of Bihar and sought a compliance report from the state government over judicial infra development. The bench lamented that even when more than 120000 advocates are practising within the state, the condition of the members of the Bar at the sub-divisional level is pitiable. It reminded the stakeholders that for the development of the judicial infra, both the Union and the Bihar government have to provide for the funds in the ratio of 60:40.

In Akanksha Maviya v The Union of India, the bench of Chief Justice Karol and Justice S.Kumar, directed the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, to forthwith take all steps ensuring the establishment of the State Mental Health Authority as stipulated under Section 45 of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017. The bench deplored the lack of priority of the state government for the mental health of people, and for those who are in need of treatment.

In Vikas Kumar v The Union of India, the bench of the Chief Justice Karol and Justice S.Kumar dealt with a plea seeking remedial steps to restore the memorials of the first president of India, Dr.Rajendra Prasad situated at three different places of Bihar. The bench appointed a team of Local Commissioners to visit the memorials and ascertain the actual status of the infrastructure and the affairs and to give suggestions as to how best the memorials can be improved and the infrastructure improvised.

In Marium Khatoon v The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home (Police), Patna, the bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice S. Kumar, intervened to expedite the process of repatriation of two minor girls, who were foreign nationals, housed at the After Care Home, Patna for a long period. However, it found the affidavit filed by the Bihar Government with regard to setting up of detention centres on the lines of Model Detention Centre/Holding Centres/Camp Manual, 2019, vague, and sought information as to specific steps taken by the state.

In Shivani Kaushik v Union of India and others, the bench of Chief Justice Karol and Justice S.Kumar directed the Bihar Government to check the purported illegality and brutality exhibited by the police in enforcing the lockdown. The bench also asked the state government to develop a state-level protocol enabling a common person to understand the need of dealing with the virus.

In the same case in May 2021, the bench sought response of Commissioner of Districts of Buxar and Kaimur with regard to disposal of the dead bodies found flowing in the river Ganga following the second COVID wave.

The bench also held that the failure of private hospitals to provide timely medical treatment is violation of Article 21. The bench issued a slew of directions observing that the government hospitals, medical officers are duty bound to extend medical assistance and failure on the part of even private hospitals to provide timely medical treatment to a person in need of such treatment results in a violation of his right to life guaranteed under Article 21.

In Vaishnavi v Union of India and others, the bench held in September 2021 that the state has an obligation to provide for a special programme to vaccinate persons with disabilities, more so, affected with leprosy, in the wake of COVID-19 wave.

In Kamlesh Chandra Lal v Union of India, the bench of Chief Justice Snajay Karol and Justice A.M.Badar held on October 26, 2021, that the State must take all possible efforts to ensure that benefits of social security provisions, be it a Statute or schemes, reach those who are the most vulnerable. The State, the bench held, must actively endeavour to introduce awareness and sensitization progams, facilitating the assimilation of those afflicted with the same back into the society as equal contributing individuals to lead a life of respect and dignity.

In Veera Yadav v Government of Bihar, the same bench suggested reservation for transgender community on a regular basis under the OBC category, and asked the State government to take the final decision.

In a suo motu case, the bench constituted a 3-member committee to ascertain infrastructure in existence to cater to girl students’ needs in various educational institutions.

In Sumit Kumar v State of Bihar, the bench awarded Rs. five lakh as compensation to a truck driver who was illegally detained and kept in custody for over 35 days by the Patna Police. The bench noted that the police did so without either filing of FIR or following any other procedure of arrest prescribed in law.

In May 2020, the bench took suo motu cognizance of video showing toddler near dead mother at the Muzaffarpur railway station, and sought facts from the authorities with regard to the happening, and the steps taken to ensure the cremation of the dead body, and the welfare of the orphan.

In June 2017, the division bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Sharma held that the right to sanitation is part of fundamental right to life and dignity. The bench held that the State is under obligation to provide basic amenities to everyone travelling on the state and national highways in the state, and they need to be protected from open defecation, untreated disposal of waste into streams and contamination of water supplies.

Death sentence

In the State of Bihar v Niranjan, the bench acquitted a death-row prisoner, setting aside conviction for murder. The bench held that quality and strength of the evidence and the case of the prosecution not only have a bearing on the decision of conviction or acquittal but also very much on the quantum of sentencing. Residual doubt becomes a factor for commuting sentence, especially where evidence is purely circumstantial. Judicial approach on the death penalty ought to be cautious, circumspect and careful more so because the decision is permanent and irreversible, the bench observed in its judgment.

In Ajit Kumar v State of Bihar, the bench acquitted a rape and murder accused, and set aside the death sentence awarded by the Trial Court on the ground that it did not furnish cogent reasons.

In The State of Bihar v Onkar Nath Singh, Chief Justice Karol, sitting with Justice Anil Kumar Upadhyay, directed training of judicial officers in exercising discretion in the matters of sentencing, especially cases involving capital punishment.

Illegal arrests

In Kundan Kumar v State of Bihar, the bench of Chief Justice Karol and Justice Upadhyay directed Judicial Academy at Patna to train judicial officers in matters of custody and remand applications, after noticing the casual remand orders passed by a Magistrate in violation of SC guidelines.

Political neutrality

In October 2019, in a suo motu PIL registered by the Tripura High Court, the bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Arindam Lodh, directed the Communist Party of India (Marxist), BJP, and Indian National Congress to file affidavits disclosing details of public properties, in their unauthorised/illegal possession, in relation to which they were claiming title by way of adverse possession. The bench asked the parties to show cause why they be not ejected from such properties.

Animal rights

In Sri Subhas Bhattacharjee v The State of Tripura, the bench of the Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Arindam Lodh, banned animal/birds sacrifice in the temples of the state observing that the animals also have fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The sacrifice of an animal in a temple, not being an essential part of religion, is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, the bench held.

In Court on its own motion v The Deputy Commissioner, Shimla and another, the bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Sharma, directed provision of shelter to ponies left out in rain and snow. Life in the context of animals does not mean mere survival or existence or instrumental value for human beings, but also some intrinsic worth, honour and dignity, the bench said.