1).Supreme Court: Territorial Jurisdiction Issue Not a Ground to Transfer S.138 NI Act Complaint Under Section 406 CrPC 

Case Background

The Supreme Court heard a batch of transfer petitions filed by the accused in cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). The accused sought the transfer of cases to courts that had the territorial jurisdiction to try them.

In this case, a loan transaction took place in Coimbatore, where the accused had deposited money and provided an equitable mortgage of properties. However, the respondent bank filed the cheque bounce case in Chandigarh. The accused argued that the case should be transferred to Coimbatore, where the transaction originally took place.

Issues in the Case

1. Can a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act be transferred from one court to another under Section 406 of the CrPC on the ground that the original court lacks territorial jurisdiction?
2. If a court lacks territorial jurisdiction, can the Supreme Court transfer the case under Section 406 CrPC to the correct court?
3. What does the expression "expedient for the ends of justice" mean in Section 406 CrPC?

Court Observations

Bench Composition

The case was heard by a bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan.

1. Territorial Jurisdiction is Not a Valid Ground for Transfer Under Section 406 CrPC

• The Court rejected the argument that a case can be transferred merely because the original court lacks territorial jurisdiction.
• It held that the power to transfer cases under Section 406 CrPC can be exercised only when it is necessary "for the ends of justice".
• Quote from Judgment:
  "Our final conclusion is that the territorial jurisdiction issue cannot be raised for the purpose of Section 406 CrPC."

2. Transfer of Trial is Not a Routine Matter

• The Court ruled that transfer of a criminal case is an exceptional measure and should not be done just because the accused finds it inconvenient to travel.
• Quote from Judgment (Paragraph 49):
  "An order of transfer of trial is not to be passed as a matter of routine and more particularly on the plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the court to try the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act."

3. Mere Inconvenience is Not a Ground for Transfer

• The Court dismissed the argument of hardship faced by the accused in traveling from Coimbatore to Chandigarh for the trial.
• It observed that the accused could seek an exemption from personal appearance or request to attend proceedings through online mode.
• Quote from Judgment:
  "Mere convenience or hardship that the accused may have to face in traveling would not fall within the expression 'expedient for the ends of justice'."

Court Rulings and When Cases Can Be Transferred

The Court listed five circumstances under which cases can be transferred under Section 406 CrPC:

1. State Machinery Acting Unfairly
   • If the prosecution is working with the accused and there is a risk of miscarriage of justice.
2. Threat to Prosecution Witnesses or Complainant
   • If the accused is likely to influence or harm the witnesses or complainant.
3. Severe Hardship to Parties Involved
   • If there is a greater burden on the accused, complainant, or witnesses, including financial strain on the government for witness expenses.
4. Communally Surcharged Atmosphere
   • If there is a high risk of bias or an unfair trial due to the sensitive nature of the case.
5. Hostile Environment Interfering with Justice
   • If external pressure or hostility is likely to interfere with the fair trial process.

Since none of these conditions were met in this case, the Court refused to transfer the matter.

Legal Provisions 

1. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Deals with cheque bounce cases.
2. Section 406 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) – Empowers the Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals when it is "expedient for the ends of justice." (Section 446 of BNSS)

Significance of the Judgment

1. Clarifies the Scope of Section 406 CrPC
   • The ruling prevents misuse of Section 406 CrPC for transferring cases based on territorial jurisdiction issues.
2. Prevents Delays in Cheque Bounce Cases
   • This decision ensures that accused persons do not use transfer petitions as a delaying tactic in NI Act cases.
3. Encourages Virtual Court Proceedings
   • The Court emphasized that accused persons can request virtual participation if travel is inconvenient.

The Supreme Court rejected the request to transfer the trial from Coimbatore to Chandigarh, ruling that mere inconvenience of the accused is not a valid reason for transfer. The Court reaffirmed that transfers should only be granted in exceptional cases, such as bias in the prosecution, threats to witnesses, or communal tensions. This decision strengthens the principles of fair trial and judicial efficiency.

Case Details: M/S SHRI SENDHURAGRO AND OIL INDUSTRIES PRANAB PRAKASH v. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.|1503 T.P.(Crl.) No. 608/2024 and others

2). Supreme Court : Suicide Note Alone Not Enough for Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Without Proven Incitement

Case Background

The Supreme Court heard an appeal filed by a man convicted under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for abetment of suicide. The prosecution had accused the appellant of blackmailing the deceased using compromising photographs and videos, which allegedly led to the deceased taking his own life.

The deceased left a suicide note naming the appellant as responsible for his suicide. Based on this, the Trial Court convicted the appellant, and the High Court upheld the conviction. Aggrieved by this, the appellant challenged the decision in the Supreme Court.

Issues in the Case

1. Can a person be convicted for abetment of suicide (Section 306 IPC) without direct evidence of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid?
2. Is a suicide note alone sufficient to prove abetment of suicide?
3. Does the prosecution need to prove a "proximate act" that directly led to the suicide?

Court Observations

Bench Composition

The case was heard by a bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.

1. Mere Harassment is Not Enough for Abetment to Suicide

• The Court emphasized that abetment to suicide requires a clear mental intention (mens rea) to instigate, conspire, or aid the deceased in committing suicide.
• Mere harassment or personal differences are not enough unless there is a direct act that forces the deceased to take such an extreme step.

Quote from Judgment:

"Without a positive proximate act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. There has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence."

2. Suicide Note Alone Cannot Be Sole Basis for Conviction

• The Court ruled that a suicide note must be corroborated by other evidence before it can be used to convict someone under Section 306 IPC.
• The authenticity of a suicide note must be proved, and a handwriting expert should be examined in court.

Quote from Judgment:

"Even if we take the suicide note as correct and genuine, we do not find any act of incitement on the part of the appellants proximate to the date on which the deceased committed suicide."

3. Lack of Proximate Act Leading to Suicide

• The Court noted that no direct act by the accused was shown to have occurred just before the suicide.
• The alleged blackmailing claim was not supported by strong evidence.
• Since there was no evidence that the appellant incited or compelled the deceased to commit suicide, the Court found the conviction unsustainable.

Court Rulings and Precedents

1. Instigation Must Be Clear and Direct

The Court relied on Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618 and Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605, which state that:

• Instigation must involve active encouragement, provocation, or goading to commit suicide.
• Harassment or disagreements alone do not establish abetment.

2. Handwriting Expert Must Be Examined in Court

The Court referred to Keshav Dutt v. State of Haryana (2010) 9 SCC 286, which held that:

• If a trial court relies on a handwriting expert’s report, the expert must be examined in court.
• The accused should have the opportunity to cross-examine the expert.

Since the prosecution failed to present the handwriting expert in court, the authenticity of the suicide note remained doubtful.

Legal Provisions 

1. Section 306 IPC – Abetment of Suicide: Conviction requires clear instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid leading to suicide. (Section 108 of BNS)
2. Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Expert testimony must be examined in court for reliability. (Section 39(1) of BSA)

Significance of the Judgment

1. Prevents Misuse of Section 306 IPC
   • This ruling prevents wrongful convictions in suicide cases where there is no clear evidence of abetment.
2. Clarifies Legal Standards for Abetment
   • The judgment reinforces that abetment requires a direct act leading to suicide.
   • Harassment alone is not enough to establish abetment.
3. Emphasizes Need for Corroborating Evidence
   • A suicide note alone is not sufficient; it must be corroborated with other evidence.
4. Upholds Fair Trial Principles
   • The Court ruled that if expert evidence is used, the expert must be examined in court, ensuring the accused gets a fair chance to defend themselves.

The Supreme Court set aside the appellant’s conviction because:

1. There was no direct evidence of abetment (instigation or incitement).
2. The suicide note alone was not enough to convict the accused.
3. The prosecution failed to prove the proximate act leading to suicide.
4. The handwriting expert was not examined in court, making the note’s authenticity doubtful.

Thus, the Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, reinforcing that abetment to suicide must be proven beyond reasonable doubt and cannot be presumed from mere allegations or indirect evidence.

Case Title: PATEL BABUBHAI MANOHARDAS & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT

3). Supreme Court: Party Liable for Violating Injunction Even If Order Is Later Set Aside – O 39 R 2A CPC

Case Background

The Supreme Court dealt with a case concerning violation of an injunction order under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The case revolved around an undertaking given by the appellant before the trial court that they would not sell or transfer the suit property to any third party.

Despite this undertaking, the appellant sold portions of the property between 2007 and 2011, violating the court order. As a result, the respondents filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, seeking action against the appellant for contempt of court.

The trial court dismissed the application, holding that the respondents failed to prove wilful disobedience beyond a reasonable doubt. Later, the trial court also dismissed the original suit, citing ambiguity in the property descriptionand granting the appellants the benefit of the doubt.

The respondents then appealed to the High Court, which reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that the appellants had willfully violated the court order. The High Court imposed penalties, including imprisonment and attachment of property.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.

Issues in the Case

1. Does the subsequent dismissal of the original suit erase the violation of an injunction order?
2. Can courts take action against a party for disobeying an injunction order even after it is later set aside?
3. What is the scope of Order 39 Rule 2A CPC in punishing those who violate injunction orders?

Court Observations

Bench Composition

The case was heard by a bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sanjay Karol.

1. Violation of an Injunction Order is an Independent Offense

• The Court emphasized that a party remains liable for disobeying an injunction order while it was in force, even if the order is later set aside.
• The Court cited the precedent set in Samee Khan v. Bindu Khan (1998) 7 SCC 59, which held that:

  "Even if the injunction order was subsequently set aside, the disobedience does not get erased."

2. Dismissal of the Original Suit Does Not Wipe Out Prior Violations

• The Court rejected the argument that the dismissal of the original suit nullifies the violation of the injunction order.
• The Court made it clear that violating an interim order is a separate offense that must be addressed, regardless of the final outcome of the case.
• Quote from Judgment:

  "The principle underscores the importance of complying with court orders during the pendency of litigation."

3. Importance of Order 39 Rule 2A CPC

• Order 39 Rule 2A CPC empowers courts to punish those who violate injunction orders by:
  • Attaching their property
  • Imposing imprisonment for up to three months
• The Court reinforced that Order 39 Rule 2A CPC applies even if the injunction order is later set aside.

Court Rulings and Decisions

• The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s finding that the appellant willfully disobeyed the injunction order.
• However, the Court modified the punishment:
  • It removed the three-month imprisonment imposed by the High Court.
  • It increased the compensation from ₹10 lakh to ₹13 lakh, with 6% simple interest from August 2, 2013.

Legal Provisions 

1. Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC – Deals with granting temporary injunctions.
2. Order 39 Rule 2A CPC – Provides punishment for disobeying injunction orders, including attachment of property and imprisonment.
3. Samee Khan v. Bindu Khan (1998) 7 SCC 59 – Established that disobedience of an injunction order does not get erased even if the order is later set aside.

Significance of the Judgment

1. Strengthens the Enforcement of Court Orders
   • The ruling ensures that court orders must be followed and cannot be ignored simply because the original suit is later dismissed.
2. Clarifies the Scope of Order 39 Rule 2A CPC
   • The judgment reinforces that violating an injunction order is an independent offense, even if the case is later decided in favor of the violator.
3. Promotes Judicial Discipline
   • The decision ensures that parties respect court orders, preventing misuse of legal loopholes to escape punishment.

The Supreme Court's judgment confirms that disobeying an injunction order is a punishable offense, even if the order is later set aside or the original suit is dismissed. The ruling reinforces the principle of judicial discipline and ensures that court orders are followed strictly.

By removing the imprisonment sentence but increasing the compensation, the Court struck a balance between punishment and fairness, emphasising that violators of court orders cannot go unpunished.

Case Title: SMT LAVANYA C & ANR VERSUS VITTAL GURUDAS PAI SINCE DESEASED BY LRS. & ORS.

4). Punjab & Haryana High Court: SC/ST Act Requires Intent to Humiliate Due to Caste, Mere Identity Not Sufficient

Case Background

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that mere membership in a Scheduled Caste (SC) or Scheduled Tribe (ST) community does not automatically attract offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The case involved a dispute where the petitioners were accused of assaulting a man belonging to the SC community and allegedly using offensive words against him.

The case was brought before the High Court in a revision plea against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Ambala, which had framed charges against the petitioners under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(x) of the SC/ST Act.

Issues in the Case

1. Does an offence under the SC/ST Act require a specific intent to humiliate the victim based on caste?
2. Did the trial court correctly apply the SC/ST Act in this case?
3. Can an offence under the SC/ST Act be made out solely based on the victim’s caste identity?

Court Observations

Bench Composition

The case was heard by Justice Harpreet Singh Brar.

1. Intent to Humiliate Based on Caste is Essential

• The Court emphasized that the SC/ST Act applies only when there is an intention to insult or humiliate the victim because of their caste.
• Simply belonging to an SC/ST community is not enough to invoke the Act.
• Quote from Judgment:

  "Merely the fact that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe would not be sufficient to attract the offences under the SC/ST Act as the existence of an intention to humiliate the victim due to his caste identity is a sine qua non for the same."

2. No Evidence of Caste-Based Insult

• The petitioners were accused of using the words "ded gitlow", but the Court found that there was no evidence that these words were meant to humiliate the complainant because of his caste.
• The record did not show how the alleged remarks were connected to the complainant’s caste identity.

3. Incorrect Framing of Charges by Trial Court

• The ASJ framed charges under "Section 3(x)" of the SC/ST Act, but the Court clarified that no such provision exists.
• Even if the reference was a typographical error, the actual provision under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act did not apply in this case.

4. Offense Must Occur in “Public View”

• The incident took place near a farm in the presence of relatives, but the Court noted that this did not qualify as a "public view" under the SC/ST Act.

5. Supreme Court Precedent on "Intent to Humiliate"

• The Court referred to Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala, where the Supreme Court ruled that:

  "Not every intentional insult or intimidation of a member of a SC/ST community will result into a feeling of caste-based humiliation."

• The SC/ST Act applies only when the insult reinforces caste-based discrimination.

6. Limited Scope of Trial Court at Charge Framing Stage

• The Court clarified that at the stage of framing charges (under Sections 227, 239, and 240 of Cr.P.C.), the trial court only needs to see whether a prima facie case exists.
• However, if there is no basis for the charges, the accused should be discharged.

Court Rulings and Decisions

• The High Court set aside the charge under the SC/ST Act, ruling that:
  • There was no clear evidence of caste-based insult.
  • The trial court incorrectly applied the SC/ST Act.
  • The incident did not occur in "public view" as required by the law.
• However, the charges under IPC (Sections 148, 323, 325, 506, 427 read with 149) remained intact.

Legal Provisions 

1. SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
   • Section 3(1)(r): Punishes intentional insult or intimidation based on caste.
   • Requirement: The insult must be specifically linked to caste identity and occur in public view.
2. Indian Penal Code (IPC)
   • Section 148: Rioting with deadly weapons. (Section 191(3) of BNS)
   • Sections 323, 325: Causing hurt and grievous hurt. (Section 115(2), Section 117(2) of BNS)
   • Section 506: Criminal intimidation. (Section 351(2)/(3) of BNS)
   • Section 425: Causing damage to property. (Section 324(1) of BNS)
   • Section 149: Unlawful assembly and common intention. (Section 190 of BNS)
3. Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)
   • Sections 227, 239, 240: Trial court’s power to decide whether charges should be framed or dismissed. (Section 250, 262, 263 of BNSS)

Significance of the Judgment

1. Clarifies Application of the SC/ST Act
   • The ruling reinforces that intent to humiliate based on caste is a mandatory requirement under the Act.
2. Prevents Misuse of the Law
   • The judgment prevents automatic application of the SC/ST Act based only on the victim’s caste.
3. Sets a Precedent for Future Cases
   • Courts must carefully evaluate whether caste-based humiliation exists before applying the SC/ST Act.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that charges under the SC/ST Act cannot be sustained unless there is clear evidence of caste-based humiliation with intent. The judgment clarifies the legal requirements for invoking the SC/ST Act and ensures that the law is applied correctly and not misused.

By removing the charges under the SC/ST Act while keeping the IPC charges intact, the Court struck a balance between justice and fairness.

Case Title: Navneet Chauhan and others v. State of Haryana and another

5). Orissa High Court: Court Can Grant Wife Maintenance Beyond Claimed Amount Under Section 25(2) HMA

Case Background

The Orissa High Court ruled that a competent court can grant maintenance exceeding the amount claimed by the wife in her application under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, if it is necessary to ensure fairness and justice.

The case involved a 72-year-old retired railway diesel engine driver (appellant-husband) and his sexagenarian wife (respondent-wife), who had no independent income and was surviving on limited government aid (₹500 per month and 5 kg of free rice). Unable to meet her daily and medical expenses, she filed an application under Section 25(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking an increase in her maintenance from ₹1,500 to ₹7,000 per month.

The Family Court in Rourkela enhanced her maintenance to ₹10,000 per month, exceeding the amount she had claimed. The husband challenged this order before the Orissa High Court, arguing that the Family Court had no jurisdiction to grant maintenance beyond what was claimed.

Issues in the Case

1. Does a court have the jurisdiction to grant maintenance higher than the amount claimed by the wife?
2. Was the Family Court justified in increasing the maintenance to ₹10,000 per month?
3. What are the legal principles governing the modification of maintenance orders?

Court Observations

Bench Composition

The case was heard by a Division Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash.

1. Courts Have Power to Modify Maintenance Orders

• The Court analyzed Section 25(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which allows courts to vary, modify, or rescind maintenance orders if there is a material change in circumstances of either party.
• The Court clarified that a formal application must be filed by either party for modification and judicial discretion must be exercised within the framework of the evidence and circumstances presented.

Court’s Clarification:

“The judicial discretion must be exercised to provide a fair and just maintenance amount, considering the dependent's actual needs and the payer's financial capability, even if the claim was initially understated.”

2. Family Court Procedurally Erred But Reached a Just Decision

• The Court acknowledged that the Family Court exceeded its jurisdiction by granting ₹10,000 when only ₹7,000 was claimed.
• However, since the financial assessment justified the increase, the Court found no reason to interfere with the decision.
• The judgment emphasized that the objective of maintenance laws is to ensure fairness and prevent financial hardship.

Court’s Conclusion:

“This part of the order of the Family Court can at best be said that the Court erred procedurally in awarding more than what was claimed, but the substance of its decision remains correct.”

3. Financial Capability of the Husband Was Considered

• The husband receives a pension of ₹50,000 per month but claimed that his personal expenses were high.
• However, the Court rejected his argument, stating that he failed to provide any documentary proof of his alleged financial burdens.
• The Court noted that the wife was unaware of her husband's pension details until he disclosed them during the case, indicating a lack of transparency.

Court’s View:

“The maintenance amount granted by the Family Court was less than 25% of the pension. Given the financial capability of the husband and the needs of the wife, the enhancement was justified.”

4. Legal Precedents Support Enhancement Beyond Claimed Amount

The Court relied on previous judgments, reinforcing that maintenance can be enhanced beyond the claimed amount if circumstances justify it:

• Kamaldeep Kaur & Anr. v. Balwinder Singh (2005) (Punjab & Haryana High Court):
  • Held that there is no specific restriction under Section 125 CrPC on awarding more than the claimed amount.
  • Courts have a duty to grant a fair maintenance amount.
• G. Amrutha Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Pradesh High Court):
  • A wife initially claimed ₹30,000, but the trial court granted ₹50,000 per month based on necessity.

These cases established that courts have discretion to increase maintenance if justified by the financial and personal circumstances of the parties.

5. Section 127 of CrPC Also Allows Modification of Maintenance

• The Court also referred to Section 127 of the CrPC, which allows for alteration of maintenance orders based on changed financial circumstances.
• This provision permits both increases and decreases in maintenance amounts when new evidence or circumstances emerge.

Court Rulings and Decisions

• The Court dismissed the husband’s appeal, upholding the Family Court’s order to grant ₹10,000 per month as maintenance.
• It acknowledged a procedural error in granting more than the claimed amount but ruled that the increase was justified based on necessity and fairness.
• It reinforced that courts must prioritize the dependent spouse’s financial security over procedural technicalities.

Final Holding:

“The enhancement, in the instant case, is warranted based on necessity rather than technicalities of the original plea.”

Legal Provisions 

1. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
   • Section 25(2): Allows modification of maintenance orders based on changed circumstances.
2. Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973
   • Section 127: Allows alteration of maintenance orders when financial circumstances change. (Section 146 of BNSS)
3. Judicial Precedents:
   • Kamaldeep Kaur & Anr. v. Balwinder Singh (2005) (Punjab & Haryana HC)
   • G. Amrutha Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AP HC)

Significance of the Judgment

1. Confirms Judicial Discretion in Maintenance Cases
   • Courts can enhance maintenance beyond the claimed amount if justified by the circumstances.
2. Prevents Procedural Technicalities from Hindering Justice
   • Even if a wife claims a lower amount, the court is not bound by it and can increase maintenance based on fairness.
3. Clarifies the Financial Responsibilities of Spouses
   • The husband’s financial position and obligations must be transparently disclosed.
4. Strengthens Protection for Financially Dependent Spouses
   • Ensures that wives are not left in financial distress due to procedural limitations.

The Orissa High Court ruled that courts have the power to grant maintenance higher than the claimed amount if necessary to ensure fairness. While the Family Court procedurally erred by exceeding the claimed amount, its decision was upheld because it was justified based on financial necessity.

This judgment reinforces the principle that maintenance laws aim to provide real financial relief rather than being limited by procedural constraints.

Case Title: Nirmal Karnakar v. Parbati @ Parbati Karnakar 

Case No: MATA No. 133 of 2024

Add-On 

Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Calctt High Court Justice Joymalya Bagchi for Elevation to Supreme Court Judge, Could Become CJI in 2031

Background

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the elevation of Justice Joymalya Bagchi, a sitting Judge of the Calcutta High Court, to the Supreme Court of India.

The Collegium considered various factors before making this recommendation, including:

• The lack of representation of the Calcutta High Court in the Supreme Court after the retirement of Justice Altamas Kabir as Chief Justice of India (CJI) in 2013.
• Currently, only one judge in the Supreme Court is from the Calcutta High Court.
• Justice Joymalya Bagchi’s seniority and judicial experience.

Future Prospects as Chief Justice of India

• As per the Collegium’s assessment, Justice Bagchi could become the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in the future.
• If appointed to the Supreme Court now, he will have a tenure of six more years before he becomes eligible for the position of CJI.
• On the retirement of Justice K.V. Viswanathan on 25th May 2031, Justice Bagchi would be next in line to assume the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) until his retirement on 2nd October 2031.

Justice Bagchi’s Seniority and Representation

• Justice Bagchi is currently ranked 11th in all-India seniority among High Court Judges and Chief Justices.
• The Calcutta High Court, being one of the oldest High Courts in India, has had limited representation in the Supreme Court in recent years.
• The Collegium’s recommendation aims to address this lack of representation and ensure balanced regional representation in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court Collegium’s recommendation of Justice Joymalya Bagchi is based on his judicial experience, seniority, and the need for balanced representation in the Supreme Court. If elevated, he could potentially become the Chief Justice of India in 2031, ensuring a strong judicial presence from the Calcutta High Court in the country’s highest court.