&w=3840&q=100)
Justice Bela Trivedi, 11th woman SC judge, retires after 3.5 years on bench
Justice Trivedi, who had the rare distinction of being elevated to the top court after starting out as a trial court judge in Gujarat in July 1995, was part of the top court's several landmark judgements.
"It was a happy coincidence that her father was already working as the judge, city civil and sessions court when she was appointed. The Limca Book of Indian records has recorded the entry in their 1996 edition that 'Father - daughter judges in the same court'," Justice Trivedi's profile on the apex court website said.
She was elevated as a judge of the apex court on August 31, 2021 when a record nine new judges, including three women, were administered oath of office.
On Friday, Justice Trivedi sat in the ceremonial bench headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai as a tradition marking the exit of a top court judge.
She was part of a five-judge Constitution bench, which by a 3:2 majority, in November 2022 upheld 10 per cent reservation introduced in 2019 for economically weaker sections in admissions and government jobs that excluded the poor among the SC/ST/OBC categories.
A seven-judge Constitution bench, which Justice Trivedi was part of, in August 2024 by a 6:1 majority held that states are constitutionally empowered to make sub-classifications within the Scheduled Castes, which form a socially heterogeneous class, for granting reservation for the uplift of castes that are socially and educationally more backward among them.
Justice Trivedi, in her 85-page dissenting verdict, said it is only Parliament which can include a caste in the SC list or exclude it, and states are not empowered to tinker with it.
A bench comprising Justice Trivedi in November 2021 said touching genitals of a child or any act involving physical contact with "sexual intent" amounts to sexual assault under Section 7 of the POCSO Act as the most important ingredient is sexual intent and not skin-to-skin contact.
It quashed the controversial "skin-to-skin" judgements of the Bombay High Court in two cases under the POCSO Act.
Justice Trivedi penned a verdict holding that the moratorium imposed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code does not prohibit the attachment of properties under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act.
A bench headed by Justice Trivedi on May 15 paved way for a Uttar Pradesh government scheme to develop the Shri Banke Bihari Temple corridor in Mathura for the benefit of scores of devotees.
Born on June 10, 1960 at Patan in north Gujarat, she practised as a lawyer in the Gujarat High Court for about 10 years.
She was appointed as a judge, city civil and sessions court at Ahmedabad, on July 10, 1995.
She had worked on different posts like registrar vigilance in the high court and law secretary in the Government of Gujarat.
She was elevated as a judge of the Gujarat High Court on February 17, 2011.
Justice Trivedi was transferred to the Rajasthan High Court where she worked since June 2011 till she was repatriated to the parent high court in February 2016.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
3 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Court cannot have blinkered vision for paltry remuneration': Gujarat HC orders increased pay for Anganwadi workers, helpers
Stating that the duties and obligations of Anganwadi workers (AWWs) and Anganwadi Helpers (AWHs) are 'onerous' and 'influence the lowest strata of the social fabric', the Gujarat High Court on Wednesday modified and partially reversed a 2024 single-judge order of the HC that had ruled that the AWWs and AWHs should be treated similar to the regularly selected permanent employees holding civil posts in the State or Central Government. In its order, Division bench of Justice AS Supehia and Justice RT Vachhani on Wednesday directed the State government departments to, jointly or exclusively, pay the minimum monthly wages of Rs 14,800 over and above of Rs 10,000 to the AWWs, which is a total of Rs 24,800. The sum is less than the fixed pay of Mukhiya Sevika (of Rs 40,800). Correspondingly, the AWHs shall also be paid the minimum wages of Rs 14, 800, in addition to Rs, 5,500, making a total of Rs 20,300, the court order said. The court has ordered that the AWWs and AWHs should be paid the arrears from the Financial Year that commenced in April 2025, within 'six months from the receipt of the high court order'. Stating that the directions would apply to all AWWs and AWHs working in all Anganwadi Centres across the state, without necessitating fresh petitions before the court, the HC said that the principle of 'equal pay and equal work' cannot be applied to AWWs and AWHs or be compared to any other Class-III or Class-IV employees. The court order stated, 'The onerous and arduous duties and obligations involving pregnant and lactating women and minors, which is unmatched to the duties of other part-time employees… There is also a huge difference between the onerous duties rendered by the AWWs and AWHs and the part-timers employed by other State Departments.' The court said, 'The duties and obligations of AWWs and AWHs influence the lowest strata of social fabric, and their duties cannot be compared to the duties rendered by other part timers engaged for six hours by the State Departments, for whom the policy of minimum wages of paying Rs 14,800 is implemented vide circular dated July 16, 2019. The amount of Rs.14,800 in the said Circular, is fixed from January 1, 2019, considering the minimum wages payable to Class-IV employees.' The court stated that as per the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of Maniben (supra), the AWWs and AWHs were declared to be holding statutory posts. '… the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to treat them at par with regularly selected permanent employees holding posts either in the Central Government or State Government is fallible, since there is fundamental difference in their source of recruitment. There is also a vast difference in their mode and manner of recruitment, requisite educational qualifications etc…,' said the court. The court order further said, 'The AWWs and AWHs, though can be said to be holding statutory posts, and their appointments are neither illegal nor irregular, they still have to satisfy the mandate of the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967, more particularly Rule 4 and Rule 9 thereof. The AWWs cannot be treated at par with Subordinate Service of Class-III. Similarly, AWHs cannot be considered at par with Inferior Service of Class-IV. Class-III and Class-IV employees in the State Government Departments, after undergoing the recruitment process as prescribed under Rules 9 by the respective departments, are placed in particular pay scales.' The court also noted that despite the top court order on the subject of wages, anganwadi workers and helpers are not being paid minimum wages. Referring to an affidavit of July 18, 2025, in which the state had showed the data of the entire state, the court order said, 'On a perusal of the same, we did not find any increase in the wages of the AWWs and AWHs and their plight remains inexorable, hence, this Court cannot have blinkered vision for the paltry remuneration paid to them.'
The Hindu
3 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Lawfare politics: on the Bills for political probity
Three Bills, including one for a constitutional amendment, introduced hurriedly by the Centre towards the end of the Parliament session, are purportedly meant to improve probity and accountability for the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers and Ministers. They will lose their position if any of them is detained by a law enforcement agency in connection with an offence that is punishable with imprisonment of five years or more. Upon acquittal, they could return. Any objective observer would be sceptical of the stated intent of these proposals. The concern expressed by the Opposition and legal minds that the proposals open a new avenue for concentration of power with the Centre is legitimate. The claim that the proposed legal regime applies equally to the Prime Minister too is weak, considering the fact that all investigative agencies are under the administrative control of the Centre. No central agency will ever detain a Prime Minister; but they have already arrested several Opposition Chief Ministers. When viewed against the backdrop of the pattern of the functioning of central agencies, such as the Enforcement Directorate and the Central Bureau of Investigation, the real intent of the new proposals by the Centre appears to be to empower itself with sweeping and arbitrary powers, which can be used against political rivals. The police are eager to arrest. The increasing difficulty in obtaining bail due to harsh provisions in laws such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, as well as a judicial diffidence in granting bail is making liberty disturbingly dispensable. Corruption is dangerous for a society, but combating it cannot be at the cost of the principles of justice. Corruption prosecutions have attained an unmistakable political character in recent years. The pattern of an individual being a target of investigation when in the Opposition, but no longer once he or she switches sides to the Bharatiya Janata Party is noticeable. If the new proposals are enacted into law, an elected official can be removed from office by mere police action, and without a fair trial, not to mention a judicial conviction. Considering the certainty that this will, in practice, only apply to State/Union Territory governments, it will also be a violation of federal principles. It is not a mere coincidence that the Centre is seeking to invest in State Governors a veto over any and all decisions of elected legislatures. The existing laws provide for the removal from office of elected officials who are convicted in cases as defined in the new proposals. These proposals amount to holding someone guilty until proven innocent, and also dishonouring the verdict of the people who elected them.
New Indian Express
3 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Will courts be powerless to intervene if Governor sits over bills passed by assembly: SC to Centre
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Centre if courts were "powerless to intervene" if Governor sat over bills for years, rendering the state legislature "defunct." A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai made the remark in response to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's submission that courts should refrain from interfering and passing binding directions in such a situation and a political solution can be found to deal with such an impasse. "The assembly, elected by a majority, unanimously passes a Bill, if the Governor does not exercise the proviso under Article 200, it will be virtually making the legislature defunct. The persons who are elected, what is the safeguard for them," the bench also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar told Mehta. The bench continued, "...can we say that however high the constitutional functionaries may be, if they do not act, the court is powerless to intervene in such a situation? Assent is given or rejected, the reasons we are not going into, why he has given or not given. Suppose an act passed by the competent legislature, if Governor simply sits over it for an indefinite period, what will then?" The bench is hearing a presidential reference on the question whether the court can impose timelines for governors and President to deal with bills passed by state assemblies. Mehta said courts should not lay down a precedent in "such an extreme situation" and rather an endeavour ought to be made in finding a solution from within the system. The Centre has challenged the April 8 verdict for ruling the bills pending with the Tamil Nadu Governor were deemed to have been passed. "This deemed to have been passed bill direction is violative of the constitution," Mehta said, arguing courts couldn't substitute itself to the role of another constitutional functionary. Mehta said no timeline could be fixed for President and Governor to act on the bills passed by the assembly as the Constitution itself didn't provide any timeline for these constitutional functionaries. The bench said it is not sitting in appellate jurisdiction to review the April 8 verdict. CJI Gavai said, "We appreciate your timeline argument. But, consider a situation where the Governor ought to act, but sits over four years. What happens to democratic set up or the 2/3 majority by which the state is elected and represents the will of the people?" Mehta said a solution had to be found politically and concluded his submissions on the presidential reference. Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for Madhya Pradesh government, has commenced his arguments. The hearing would resume on August 26. Earlier, the bench asked the Centre if hands of constitutional courts could be tied if constitutional functionaries refused to discharge functions or there was inaction on the part of the Governor on bills passed by state assemblies. The bench made the remarks after Mehta said if some Governors sat over bills passed by the assembly, political solutions had to be explored by states instead of judicial solutions. CJI Gavai asked Mehta, "If constitutional functionaries do not discharge their functions without any reason, can the hands of a constitutional court be tied?" Mehta said for all problems, courts couldn't be the solution and in a democracy, primacy had to be given to dialogue. Justice Kant weighed in, "If there is any inaction on the part of the Governor, which can vary from state to state, and if an aggrieved State approaches the court, can the judicial review of such inaction be completely barred. Tell us what can be the solution?" Calling for some "flexibility", Mehta submitted, "Suppose the Governor is sitting over bills, there are political solutions which can be adopted. It is not everywhere that the chief minister rushes to the court. There are instances where parleys take place, the chief minister meets the Governor, he meets the Prime Minister and President and solutions are found." The law officer said there were several occasions telephonic conversations were made to resolve the impasse. "For decades, this practice has been adopted to resolve disputes, if any. Delegations go and meet the governor, President and sometimes a middle path is found," Mehta said. He underscored invoking statesmanship and political maturity to end the impasse between the state government and Governor, who is Centre's representative. "I am saying, every problem in this country may not have solutions here in the court. There are problems in the country where you find solutions within the system," he added. Earlier, the CJI said judicial activism should not become judicial terrorism. The chief justice's remark came when Mehta said that elected people who have a lot of experience should never be undermined. "We never said anything about the elected people. I have always said that judicial activism should never become judicial terrorism or judicial adventurism," the CJI told Mehta. On April 8, the apex court while dealing with the powers of Governor with respect to bills passed by the Tamil Nadu assembly, for the first time, prescribed the President to decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by the Governor within three months from the date on which such a reference was received.
