Justice Sachdeva appointed MP Chief Justice
Previously, he served as the acting chief justice of the MP high court between July 9, 2024, to September 24, 2024, and again on May 24, 2025.
Born on December 26, 1964, in Delhi, he graduated with a Bachelor of Commerce (Honours) from Shri Ram College of Commerce, Delhi University in 1985, and later obtained a law degree from Campus Law Centre, Delhi University in 1988.
He enrolled as an advocate with the Delhi Bar Council on August 1, 1988.
In 1992, he participated in the Commonwealth Young Lawyers Course at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, University of London, working with solicitors and barristers in England. In 1995, he was appointed as an Advocate on Record at the Supreme Court of India. He was awarded a British Council scholarship for being one of five young lawyers representing India in the Commonwealth Young Lawyers Course in 1992.
On April 17, 2013, he was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Delhi High Court and became a Permanent Judge on March 18, 2015. He took the oath as a Permanent Judge of the MPHC in Jabalpur on May 3, 2024.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
6 hours ago
- Business Standard
No purpose in continuing criminal case against kin after divorce: SC
The Supreme Court on Tuesday said continuation of criminal proceedings against family members after divorce between the couple served no legitimate purpose. A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Viswanathan passed the direction while quashing an FIR against a father-in-law booked under provisions of Dowry Act and IPC provisions, including Sections 498A (cruelty by husband or his relatives). The top court said the power under Article 142 (to do complete justice) must be invoked to advance the cause of complete justice in matters of such nature. "Once the marital relationship has ended in divorce and the parties have moved on with their lives, the continuation of criminal proceedings against family members, especially in the absence of specific and proximate allegations, serves no legitimate purpose," the bench said. The order continued, "It only prolongs bitterness and burdens the criminal justice system with disputes that are no longer live. The law must be applied in a manner that balances the need to address genuine grievances with the equally important duty to prevent its misuse." The apex court said the power to quash such proceedings was essential to uphold fairness and bring about a "quietus to personal disputes that have run their course". Referring to its judgements, the bench said the family members of the husband ought not to be unnecessarily roped into criminal proceedings stemming from matrimonial discord. "The court observed that it has become a recurring tendency to implicate every member of the husband's family, irrespective of their role or actual involvement, merely because a dispute has arisen between the spouses," it said. The bench observed the verdicts further held it to be abuse of law if the complaint was bereft of specific particulars, especially where the relatives sought to be prosecuted resided separately or had no connection with the matrimonial home. The order came on an appeal filed by man challenging an order of Madhya Pradesh High Court which refused to quash the FIR lodged by the man's daughter-in-law. The top court said the estranged couple was separated by a decree of divorce in 2021, which attained finality and not challenged by either side. Both parties were stated to be leading independent lives.
Hindustan Times
7 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Continuing criminal case against kin of estranged couple after divorce has no purpose: SC
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Tuesday said continuation of criminal proceedings against family members after divorce between the couple served no legitimate purpose. Continuing criminal case against kin of estranged couple after divorce has no purpose: SC A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Viswanathan passed the direction while quashing an FIR against a father-in-law booked under provisions of Dowry Act and IPC provisions, including Sections 498A . The top court said the power under Article 142 must be invoked to advance the cause of complete justice in matters of such nature. "Once the marital relationship has ended in divorce and the parties have moved on with their lives, the continuation of criminal proceedings against family members, especially in the absence of specific and proximate allegations, serves no legitimate purpose," the bench said. The order continued, "It only prolongs bitterness and burdens the criminal justice system with disputes that are no longer live. The law must be applied in a manner that balances the need to address genuine grievances with the equally important duty to prevent its misuse." The apex court said the power to quash such proceedings was essential to uphold fairness and bring about a "quietus to personal disputes that have run their course". Referring to its judgements, the bench said the family members of the husband ought not to be unnecessarily roped into criminal proceedings stemming from matrimonial discord. "The court observed that it has become a recurring tendency to implicate every member of the husband's family, irrespective of their role or actual involvement, merely because a dispute has arisen between the spouses," it said. The bench observed the verdicts further held it to be abuse of law if the complaint was bereft of specific particulars, especially where the relatives sought to be prosecuted resided separately or had no connection with the matrimonial home. The order came on an appeal filed by man challenging an order of Madhya Pradesh High Court which refused to quash the FIR lodged by the man's daughter-in-law. The top court said the estranged couple was separated by a decree of divorce in 2021, which attained finality and not challenged by either side. Both parties were stated to be leading independent lives. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
The Hindu
4 days ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court stays M.P. High Court order in Saif Ali Khan family property dispute
The Supreme Court on Friday granted an interim stay on a Madhya Pradesh High Court order remanding a decades-old property dispute involving the royal estate of Bhopal's last Nawab, Hamidullah Khan, to the trial court for fresh adjudication. Also Read | M.P. High Court reverses lower court order that granted ownership of ancestral properties to Saif Ali Khan, family A Bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Atul Chandurkar issued notice on a plea of Omar Faruq Ali and Raashid Ali, descendants of the elder brother of Nawab Hamidullah Khan, against the High Court's order of June 30. The petitioners have challenged the High Court's decision to set aside a February 14, 2000, trial court judgment that upheld the exclusive rights of Nawab's daughter Sajida Sultan, her son Mansoor Ali Khan (former India cricket captain), and their legal heirs, actor Saif Ali Khan, Soha Ali Khan, Saba Sultan, and veteran actress Sharmila Tagore, over the estate. The High Court said the trial court's ruling was based on a 1997 Allahabad High Court verdict, which was later overturned by the Supreme Court in 2019. However, instead of applying the 2019 precedent and deciding the case conclusively, the High Court remanded the matter for re-evaluation. Senior advocate Devadutt Kamat, appearing for the petitioners, said the High Court remand order was contrary to the procedural norms outlined under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The case has its origins in civil suits filed in 1999 by members of the Nawab's extended family, including the late Begum Suraiya Rashid and her children, Mahabano (also deceased), Niloufar, Nadir, and Yawar, as well as Nawabzadi Qamar Taj Rabia Sultan, another daughter of the Nawab. The plaintiffs sought partition, possession, and equitable settlement of the Nawab's private estate. The trial court ruled in favour of Sajida Sultan, stating the estate was not subject to Muslim Personal Law and had devolved upon her under constitutional provisions. Following the Nawab's death in 1960, the Government of India issued a 1962 certificate recognising Sajida Sultan as both the ruler and rightful heir to the personal estate under Article 366(22) of the Constitution. The plaintiffs, however, contended the Nawab's personal estate should be distributed among all legal heirs under Muslim Personal Law. They also pointed out the 1962 certificate was not formally contested but claimed it should not bar equitable partition. The respondents, including actor Saif Ali Khan and his family, argued succession followed the rule of primogeniture and Sajida Sultan had rightfully inherited both the royal title (Gaddi) and personal properties. While overturning the trial court ruling, the High Court remanded the case. The petitioners moved the top court seeking reversal of the remand order.
