Pritinker Diwaker
Welcome to Drishti Judiciary - Powered by Drishti IAS








Important Personalities

Home / Important Personalities

Important Personalities

Pritinker Diwaker

    «    »
 01-Jan-2024

Who is Justice Pritinker Diwaker?

  • Justice Pritinker Diwaker was appointed as the 50th Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court. He was born on 22nd November 1961. He retired on 21st November 2023. He also practiced as an advocate and during his legal career he dealt with constitutional, civil and criminal matters.

How was the Career Journey of Justice Pritinker Diwaker?

  • Justice Pritinker Diwaker graduated in Law from Durgawati University, Jabalpur and enrolled as an Advocate in 1984.
  • He had been the Standing Counsel for several Public Sector Units.
  • He was designated as Senior Advocate by HC of Chhattisgarh in January 2005.
  • He was a member of Madhya Pradesh State Bar Council for seven years and that of State Bar Council of Chhattisgarh for five years.
  • He was elevated as Judge of Chhattisgarh HC on 31st March 2009 and was transferred to Allahabad HC on 3rd October 2018
    • He was appointed as Acting Chief Justice from 13th February 2023.
  • He took oath as Chief Justice of Allahabad HC on 26th March 2023.

What are the Notable Judgments of Justice Pitrinker Diwaker?

  • Mamta Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh (2017):
    • The Allahabad HC held that “Interference with the policy decision and the issuance of a writ of mandamus to frame a policy in a particular manner are absolutely different”.
    • The court further said that issuance of notification regarding the manner in which the business of liquor has to be carried out in the State is well within its power.
      • It is not within the domain of the Court to legislate by plunging into the policy making process or issuing a direction for making a particular policy in a specific manner.
  • Munni Devi v. State of UP (2020):
    • The Allahabad HC held that “Once a dying declaration is held to be authentic inspiring full confidence beyond doubt, voluntary, consistent and credible; in such sanctitude it can even be the exclusive and can be made the solitary basis for conviction without seeking any corroboration”.
  • Shashank Singh And 4 Others v. Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Another (2021):
    • Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker held that, under Article 233 of the Constitution of India, 1950, a Judicial Officer regardless of his or her previous experience, as an Advocate with 7 years practice, cannot apply and compete for appointment to any vacancy in the post of District Judge.
    • He continued that, his or her chance to occupy the post would be through promotion in accordance with the Rules framed under Article 233 and Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
  • In Re v. State of UP (2023):
    • The Allahabad HC considered the plight of litigants because of the strike of lawyers.
    • Considering the misery of litigants, the HC said that “Their silent cry for a civilized human solution to their grievances and problems, and for a level playing field is a call for justice, to be felt and heard not only by the Judges but also by the lawyers, the latter, unfortunately, not hearing this cry, whatever may be the reason which, certainly, cannot have more weight than the weight of tears and pain of litigant(s) who have reposed all faith in our judicial system and the institution of justice”.
  • M/S Baba Construction Pvt. Ltd v. State of UP (2023):
    • The court heard the appeal of appellant where appellant was blacklisted for tenders by a civil engineer of Agra Development Authority, Agra.
    • The Allahabad HC held that “A notice for blacklisting is required to specify as to what would be the consequence if the noticee does not satisfactorily meet the grounds on which the action is proposed”.
      • The notice is also required to state the grounds necessitating the action and the penalty proposed specifically and unambiguously.
      • Show cause notice is also required to adhere to the principles of natural justice.
    • The court finally said that the orders of blacklisting have been passed for an indefinite period which is not permissible under the law.