Important Personalities

Introduction

Justice Indu Malhotra is a retired judge of Supreme Court of India. She was born in Bangalore on 14^th March 1956. She was the first woman to be appointed as a Judge of the SC directly through bar. She was appointed as judge of Supreme Court on 26^th April 2018 and retired on 13^th March 2021. She was also a part of 3-member committee which was formulated to inquire the allegations of sexual harassment on former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi.

What is the Career Journey of Justice Indu Malhotra?

• Justice Indu Malhotra pursued her education at Carmel Convent School, Delhi.
• She earned a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science from Lady Shri Ram College in 1975, followed by a Master's Degree in Political Science from Delhi University in 1977.
• Beginning her career as a lecturer at Miranda House College and Vivekanand College, Delhi University in 1978, she later obtained a post-graduate Diploma in Corporate Laws & Secretarial Practice from the Indian Law Institute.
• Admitted to the Bar Council of Delhi in 1983, she excelled in her legal career, becoming the second woman designated as a Senior Advocate by the Supreme Court in 2007.
• Specializing in Arbitration law, she participated in numerous domestic and international arbitrations.
• Additionally, she served on various legal committees, contributed to legal publications, and lectured at prestigious law universities across India.

What are the Notable Judgments of Justice Indu Malhotra?

• India Oxygen v. Collector of Central Excise (1998):
  • Justice Indu Malhotra appeared as a counsel for respondent where the court held that transportation costs from factory to depot are not part of the assessable value. Ex-factory prices must determine value, excluding additional charges.
  • The Tribunal's decision was upheld against which the appeal was preferred.
• Union of India v. Harjeet Singh Sandhu (2001):
  • Justice Indu Malhotra appeared as a counsel for respondent where the court held that any person subject to Army Act dismissed or removed from the service by Central Government is not previous convict.
• Jaya Shah v. Bombay Stock Exchange (2004):
  • Justice Indu Malhotra appeared as a counsel for the respondent where the court held that the Bombay Stock Exchange 's (BSE) held by the Defaulters' Committee were not owned by the BSE but by the defaulting member.
  • Court ordered reconsideration, urging clarity and timely disclosure for fairness.
• Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. v. Union of India (2018):
  • This judgment was authored by Justice Indu Malhotra.
  • On 6^th September 2018, a five-judge bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra, Justices Rohington Nariman, D Y Chandrachud, A M Khanwilkar and Indu Malhotra unanimously decriminalized Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
  • The provision was decriminalized to the extent it was criminalizing homosexual relations.
  • The bench found it violative of freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) and right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
• Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018):
  • The SC declared Section 497 of IPC criminalizing Adultery as unconstitutional and struck it down.
  • The court emphasized the importance of recognizing women as equal partners in a marriage, capable of making choices about their relationships.
  • The judgment marked a significant departure from the archaic notion that a woman loses her self-autonomy upon marriage.
  • Justice Indu Malhotra observed that “This Court has found that adultery may be a moral wrong”.
• Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2019):
  • The SC, with a 4:1 majority, rendered its decision in this case, asserting that the practice of barring women from entering in place of worship contravened fundamental rights including equality, liberty, and freedom of religion as outlined in Articles 14, 15, 19(1), 21, and 25(1) of the Constitution.
  • It invalidated Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Act on grounds of unconstitutionality.
    • This rule permitted Hindu denominations to bar women from public places of worship based on customary reasons.
  • The highest court permitted the entry of women of all age groups to the Sabarimala Temple, emphasizing that "Devotion cannot be subjected to Gender Discrimination”.
  • Justice Indu Malhotra gave a dissenting opinion in this case. In her dissent she articulated several key points.
    • Firstly, she held that the Writ Petition lacked standing and the grievances raised were nonjusticiable.
    • Secondly, she emphasized that Article 14's equality doctrine does not supersede Article 25's fundamental right to religious practice.
    • She underscored the importance of Constitutional Morality in harmonizing Fundamental Rights, especially in matters of religious practice, and recognized the plausibility of the Sabarimala Temple worshippers being a religious denomination entitled to protection under Article 26.
    • Additionally, she reasoned that the limited restriction on women's entry didn't violate Article 17, and Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules was not ultra vires Section 3 of the 1965 Act. These points, she argued, should be decided by a competent civil jurisdiction court.