How many Supreme Court judges are related to former judges? Here's a closer look
Justice Sanjiv Khanna retired as Chief Justice of India on May 13. His father Justice Hans Raj Khanna, was a Supreme Court judge during the Emergency.
Khanna has been replaced by Justice BR Gavai as the new CJI. Justice Gavai took the oath of office on May 14. Gavai's father was a politician.
Currently, there are 32 judges in the Supreme Court, including CJI Gavai. Of these at least 11 Judges are closely related to former judges. About 10 SC judges had fathers who were lawyers.
Among the existing SC judges, Justice Manoj Misra's grandfather and father were both prominent lawyers in the Allahabad High Court, according to a recent report in The Print. Justice Misra was elevated as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India on February 06, 2023.
Justice Misra's two sons Raghuvansh Misra and Devansh Misra are advocates. Raghuvansh is married to Kalpana Sinha, the daughter of former Allahabad High Court judge Justice Vipin Sinha, whose father Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha delivered the famous Allahabad High Court judgment that invalidated the election of then prime minister Indira Gandhi in 1975.
There are other examples. Justice BV Nagarathna is in line to become the CJI in 2027. Her father was former Chief Justice of India Justice ES Venkataramiah.
-Justice Bela M Trivedi retires this week from Supreme Court of India. Her father was in judicial services too.
-Justice PS Narasimha's father Justice Kodanda Ramaiah was a judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
-Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia's father was a judge of the Allahabad High Court.
-Justice Dipankar Datta's father was former Calcutta HC Judge, Late Justice SK Datta.
-Justice Pankaj Mithal's father Justice Narendra Nath Mithal was judge of Allahabad High Court
-Justice Sandeep Mehta is related to former SC judge Justice GS Singhvi.
-Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale's father was also a judge at Bombay High Court
-Justice N Koitiswar Singh's father, Late Justice N Ibotombi Singh worked at the Gauhati High Court.
-Justice Abhay S Oka's father Shreeniwas W Oka was a layer in Thane
-Justice Vikram Nath began his career as a third -generation lawyer while Justice MM Sindresh's father VK Muthusumy was a senior advocate in Madras
-Justice JB Pardiwala's great grand-father Navrojji Bhikhaji practiced in 1894 at Valsad.
-Just Sanjay Kumar's father P Ramachandra Reddy, is a former Advocate General of Andhra Pradesh.
-Justice Manoj Misra started as a third-generation lawyer while Justice PK Mishra's father was also a lawyer.
-Justice KV Viswanathan's father has been a public prosecutor in Coimbatore while Justice Ujjal Bhuyan's father SN Bhuyan was a senior advocate in Assam.
-Justice Joymalya Bagchi's father was also an advocate.
-CJI Justice BR Gavai comes from a non-legal background. His father was a politician. Justice Gavai's father Ramakrishna Suryabhan Gavai was a well-known Ambedkarite leader and founder of the Republican Party of India. His followers and admirers fondly called him Dadasaheb.
A Lok Sabha MP from Amravati, Ramakrishna Gavai served as Governor of Bihar, Sikkim, and Kerala between 2006 and 2011, when the Congress-led UPA was in power at the Centre.
-Justice SC Sharma's father, Dr BN Sharma was a veteran agriculturalist who taught at Jabalpur University.
Justice Gavai comes from a non-legal background, yet has risen to prominence in the judiciary.
-Justice R Mahadevan's father was a Tamil writer.
-Justice Manmohan's father was a bureaucrat-turned-politician Jagmogan. After working with the Congress party, Jagmohan joined the Bharatiya Janata Party in 1995. He served as Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and Goa, as the 5th Governor of Jammu and Kashmir, and for three terms as Member of Parliament for New Delhi. In the cabinet, he served as Union Minister for Urban Development and Tourism.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
24 minutes ago
- Time of India
Supreme Court Expands Reverse Discrimination Claims for Majority Groups, ET LegalWorld
A unanimous Supreme Court made it easier Thursday to bring lawsuits over so-called reverse discrimination, siding with an Ohio woman who claims she didn't get a job and then was demoted because she is straight. The justices' decision affects lawsuits in 20 states and the District of Columbia where, until now, courts had set a higher bar when members of a majority group, including those who are white and heterosexual, sue for discrimination under federal law. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court that federal civil rights law draws no distinction between members of majority and minority groups. Advt Advt Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals Subscribe to our newsletter to get latest insights & analysis. Download ETLegalWorld App Get Realtime updates Save your favourite articles Scan to download App "By establishing the same protections for every 'individual' - without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group - Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone," Jackson court ruled in an appeal from Marlean Ames, who has worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for more than 20 he joined Jackson's opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas noted in a separate opinion that some of the country's "largest and most prestigious employers have overtly discriminated against those they deem members of so-called majority groups."Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, cited a brief filed by America First Legal, a conservative group founded by Trump aide Stephen Miller, to assert that "American employers have long been 'obsessed' with 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives and affirmative action plans."Two years ago, the court's conservative majority outlawed consideration of race in university admissions. Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump has ordered an end to DEI policies in the federal government and has sought to end government support for DEI programs elsewhere. Some of the new administration's anti-DEI initiatives have been temporarily blocked in federal opinion makes no mention of DEI. Instead, she focused on Ames' contention that she was passed over for a promotion and then demoted because she is heterosexual. Both the job she sought and the one she had held were given to LGBTQ people. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars sex discrimination in the workplace. A trial court and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against 6th circuit is among the courts that had required an additional requirement for people like Ames, showing "background circumstances" that might include that LGBTQ people made the decisions affecting Ames or statistical evidence of a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority appeals court noted that Ames didn't provide any such Jackson wrote that "this additional 'background circumstances' requirement is not consistent with Title VII's text or our case law construing the statute."
Time of India
24 minutes ago
- Time of India
Supreme Court Ruling On Gun Companies: Supreme Court Blocks Mexico's Gun Lawsuit Against US Companies, ET LegalWorld
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday spared two American gun companies from a lawsuit by Mexico's government accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels and fueling gun violence in the southern neighbor of the United States. The justices in a 9-0 ruling authored by liberal Justice Elena Kagan overturned a lower court's ruling that had allowed the lawsuit to proceed against firearms maker Smith & Wesson and distributor Interstate Arms. The lower court had found that Mexico plausibly alleged that the companies aided and abetted unlawful sales routing guns to Mexican drug cartels, harming its government. Advt Advt Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals Subscribe to our newsletter to get latest insights & analysis. Download ETLegalWorld App Get Realtime updates Save your favourite articles Scan to download App The justices embraced the argument made by the companies for dismissal of Mexico's suit under a 2005 U.S. law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that broadly shields gun companies from liability for crimes committed with their products. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had decided in 2024 that the alleged conduct by the companies fell outside these Supreme Court decided that while it has little doubt that U.S. companies are aware of some unlawful sales to Mexican gun traffickers, Mexico's lawsuit failed to allege that the companies had aided and abetted such illegal firearms sales by deliberately helping to bring about the transactions."Mexico's plausible allegations are of 'indifference' rather than assistance," Kagan wrote. "They are of the manufacturers merely allowing some unidentified 'bad actors' to make illegal use of their wares." The case came to the Supreme Court at a complicated time for U.S.-Mexican relations as President Donald Trump pursues on-again, off-again tariffs on Mexican goods. Trump has also accused Mexico of doing too little to stop the flow of synthetic drugs such as fentanyl and migrant arrivals at the lawsuit, filed in Boston in 2021, accused the two companies of violating various U.S. and Mexican laws. Mexico claims that the companies have deliberately maintained a distribution system that included firearms dealers who knowingly sell weapons to third-party, or "straw," purchasers who then traffic guns to cartels in suit also accused the companies of unlawfully designing and marketing their guns as military-grade weapons to drive up demand among the cartels, including by associating their products with the American military and law enforcement. The gun companies said they make and sell lawful avoid its lawsuit being dismissed under the 2005 law, Mexico was required to plausibly allege that the companies aided and abetted illegal gun sales and that such conduct was the "proximate cause" - a legal principle involving who is responsible for causing an injury - of the harms claimed by Mexico. The Supreme Court, which heard arguments in the case on March 4, declined to resolve the proximate cause question after finding that Mexico's suit failed to adequately allege aiding and Arrocha Olabuenaga, the legal adviser for Mexico's Foreign Ministry, vowed that Mexico will continue pursuing its legal fight."While we are disappointed with the decision from this Supreme Court, we are convinced of the strength of our arguments and the evidence that upholds them, and we are encouraged by the support at home and abroad for Mexico's actions," he in the lawsuit had sought monetary damages of an unspecified amount and a court order requiring Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms to take steps to "abate and remedy the public nuisance they have created in Mexico."The Second Amendment Foundation, a gun rights group that backed the U.S. gun companies in the case, welcomed Thursday's ruling."The lawsuit, dreamt up by multiple gun control groups, had one goal - bankrupt the American firearms market by allowing civil liability to apply for the criminal misuse of its products," the group said in a social media post. "Thankfully the Supreme Court stepped in and squashed it."Gun violence fueled by trafficked U.S.-made firearms has contributed to a decline in business investment and economic activity in Mexico and forced its government to incur unusually high costs on services including healthcare, law enforcement and the military, according to the a country with strict firearms laws, has said most of its gun homicides are committed with weapons trafficked from the United States and valued at more than $250 million Perez Ricart, an international affairs researcher at Mexico's Center for Economic Research and Teaching (CIDE), criticized the ruling."Once again, the industry is shielded. It doesn't matter how many bullets cross the border or how many people are killed on the Mexican side. Bullets are not the only things that kill; so does the legal impunity guaranteed by Washington," Ricart said in a social media post.
Time of India
39 minutes ago
- Time of India
Prabhakar Rao likely to return to India on June 9
Hyderabad: Former Special Intelligence Bureau (SIB) chief Prabhakar Rao, prime accused in the phone tapping case, is expected to come to India on June 9 from the US. It is learnt that Rao approached the Indian embassy in the US and is all set to get his passport. The Supreme Court had recently directed authorities to restore his passport to allow him to travel to India. The SC also protected him from arrest, but directed him to return to India within three days of obtaining his travel documents. The passport had been revoked following a request to Centre from Hyderabad police as he had been avoiding questioning by cops by staying in the US citing ill health. Soon after Hyderabad police registered a case of phone tapping in 2024, Rao had fled to the US.
