Justice Arun Mishra, one of the most controversial SC judges, retires after a six-year tenure

Justice Arun Mishra retires from the Supreme Court (SC) from September 2 after a six-year tenure. Many might describe him as one of the most controversial judges in the history of the country’s top court.

He was involved in some of the high-profile, contested and politically sensitive cases ever since he was elevated to the Apex Court in July 2014, after serving in Madhya Pradesh and as Chief Justice of the Rajasthan and Calcutta High Courts.

Some of the cases include the Sahara-Birla diaries, the Haren Pandya murder case, the Land Acquisition Act row, the medical bribery issue, the tussle within the CBI and the petitions against the Chief Justices of India (CJIs).

Last verdict

On September 1, after his Bench delivered a verdict on the management of Ujjain's Mahakaleshwar Temple, Justice Mishra reportedly said:  "Shiv-ji ki kripa se ye aakhri judgment bhi ho gaya  (The last judgment has been delivered, by the grace of Lord Shiva).”

Earlier on the same day, he delivered a judgment on the AGR (Adjusted Gross Revenue) issue involving telecom companies, allowing them a 10-year window to make the payments, sparking a debate.

“This illustrious figure ended his tenure yesterday by granting telecom operators another 10 years to pay AGR dues. No contempt Sir - wish you the very best in your new assignment- NCLT Chairman, governor, RS- whichever the case may be,” All India Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Mitra wrote in a tweet.

Courting controversies off-court

Justice Mishra has been making news off the court as well. In February this year, he faced flak from the legal and political fraternity when he described Prime Minister Narendra Modi a “versatile genius” while speaking at an SC-organised event.

More recently, he was also part of the three-judge panel that heard the much-talked-about contempt petition against advocate Prashant Bhushan.

On August 31, the bench fined Bhushan Re 1, and warned that if he  fails to pay before September 15, he can be imprisoned for three months and debarred from practising law for three years.

Not to attend Bar Association’s farewell ceremony

Justice Mishra, who turns 65 on September 3, is the son of Justice HG Mishra, a former judge of the Madhya Pradesh high court, who served from December 1977 to July 1982, when he died in office. He practised constitutional, civil, industrial, service and criminal law and served as the chairman of the Bar Council of India.

On his last day as an SC judge, Justice Mishra sits with Chief Justice of India SA Bobde, as part of the tradition of retiring judges sitting in the CJI’s bench on the last working day.

Justice Mishra has, however, declined the SC Bar Association's invitation for a farewell ceremony, citing the coronavirus outbreak.

“However, taking into consideration the severe situation and sufferings the world over on account of the COVID-19 pandemic, my conscience does not permit me to participate in any farewell function," he wrote.

Serving under seven CJIs, Justice Mishra, as per reports, authored 132 judgments and was part of 540 SC benches.

Here is a look at some of the controversial cases that Justice Mishra was part of.  

The Sahara-Birla Diaries

In 2017, a two-judge Bench, headed by Justice Arun Mishra, dismissed a petition seeking a probe into what came to be known as the Sahara-Birla diaries. Common Cause, an NGO, had, in 2015, filed a plea in the SC, seeking a probe into Sahara-Birla documents as the Income-Tax department had not handed them over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) which was looking into the matter.

The petitioner said the matter involved payments to top functionaries of political parties. The Bench held that persons holding high constitutional positions could not be subject to investigation based on ‘loose papers’.

 The Land Acquisition Act

On October 23, 2019, Justice Mishra refused to recuse himself from heading a Constitution Bench, examining his own earlier ruling in a case related to the Land Acquisition Act.

The decision followed a campaign on social media and websites urging him to step down on grounds of judicial propriety.  In March 2020, however, the Constitution Bench, upheld a 2018 verdict, written by Justice Mishra himself. The case pertained to different interpretations of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Act, 2013.

The Haren Pandya Murder

On July 5, 2019, a Bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra convicted 12 persons in the case related to the murder of former Gujarat Home Minister Haren Pandya. While doing so, the top court overruled the acquittal of the accused by the Gujarat High Court, but allowed the appeals by the CBI and the Gujarat government.

Pandya was shot dead on March 26, 2003, in Ahmedabad. A CBI probe had concluded that he was killed to avenge the deaths in the 2002 riots, in the aftermath of Godhra train carnage. In August 2011, the High Court had acquitted the 12 accused of murder charges, overruling the 2007 conviction by a trial court.

The case was allotted to the two-judge Bench headed by Justice Mishra in October 2018. The top court’s verdict overruling the Gujarat High Court order came a few weeks after the 2019 Lok Sabha election results, paving way for second term for the BJP. An earlier verdict could have had political ramifications on elections.

Cases against Chief Justices of India

On  November 14, 2017, a Bench comprising three judges, including Justice Arun Mishra, dismissed senior advocate Kamini Jaiswal’s petition seeking a court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the medical bribery case.

The CBI was investigating a Lucknow-based medical college that was allegedly trying to secure favourable judgment by bribing the sitting High Court and Supreme Court judges.  Senior advocates Prashant Bhushan, Kamini Jaiswal and Dushyant Dave raised the involvement of the then Chief Justice of India, though he had not been blamed in the FIR by the CBI.

The judgment said it was “highly improper” on the part of the petitioner to allege conflict of interest in the petition and say that then CJI Dipak Misra should not hear it on the judicial side or allocate the matter on the administrative side.

On December 1, 2017, another PIL by the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) on the same matter was dismissed by the same Bench. A fine of Rs 25 lakh was imposed on CJAR.  On April 20, 2019, Justice Mishra was part of the Special Bench that was set up over the allegations of sexual harassment against then CJI Justice Ranjan Gogoi.

Earlier, the CJI had headed the Special Bench set up on the day. But then Justice Mishra took over the three-judge Bench to consider if there was a larger conspiracy to blackmail the CJI. The Bench issued a notice to advocate Utsav Bains, who had claimed that the allegations against the CJI were part of a larger plot to destabilise the judiciary.

Retired Justice AK Patnaik was assigned to submit a detailed report after investigating the matter. A report was submitted to the court in September 2019. The SC employee who had levelled charges against the CJI was, however, reinstated in January 2020, and the criminal case against her dropped.

100% reservation in scheduled areas

On April 22, 2020,  a five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Justice Mishra, struck down a government order issued by the Andhra Pradesh government in 2000 that granted absolute reservation for Scheduled Tribe candidates for teaching jobs in schools in scheduled areas.

The Bench held that the government order was arbitrary and not permissible under the Constitution. It cited the 1992 Indira Sawhney judgment, which capped reservations at 50 percent. The judgment sparked protests by tribal groups across Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.

Nageswara Rao’s appointment as interim CBI chief

On February 2019, a SC Bench consisting of Justice Arun Mishra dismissed a joint petition by Common Cause and RTI Activist Anjali, questioning the appointment of M Nageswara Rao as CBI’s interim director.

The Bench said that there was no illegality in Rao’s appointment since a high-powered selection committee had passed a resolution authorising the appointment. The petitioners wanted the Apex Court to quash the January 10 order, appointing Rao.