How many Supreme Court judges are related to former judges? Here's a closer look
Khanna has been replaced by Justice BR Gavai as the new CJI. Justice Gavai took the oath of office on May 14. Gavai's father was a politician.
Currently, there are 32 judges in the Supreme Court, including CJI Gavai. Of these at least 11 Judges are closely related to former judges. About 10 SC judges had fathers who were lawyers.
Among the existing SC judges, Justice Manoj Misra's grandfather and father were both prominent lawyers in the Allahabad High Court, according to a recent report in The Print. Justice Misra was elevated as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India on February 06, 2023.
Justice Misra's two sons Raghuvansh Misra and Devansh Misra are advocates. Raghuvansh is married to Kalpana Sinha, the daughter of former Allahabad High Court judge Justice Vipin Sinha, whose father Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha delivered the famous Allahabad High Court judgment that invalidated the election of then prime minister Indira Gandhi in 1975.
There are other examples. Justice BV Nagarathna is in line to become the CJI in 2027. Her father was former Chief Justice of India Justice ES Venkataramiah.
-Justice Bela M Trivedi retires this week from Supreme Court of India. Her father was in judicial services too.
-Justice PS Narasimha's father Justice Kodanda Ramaiah was a judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
-Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia's father was a judge of the Allahabad High Court.
-Justice Dipankar Datta's father was former Calcutta HC Judge, Late Justice SK Datta.
-Justice Pankaj Mithal's father Justice Narendra Nath Mithal was judge of Allahabad High Court
-Justice Sandeep Mehta is related to former SC judge Justice GS Singhvi.
-Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale's father was also a judge at Bombay High Court
-Justice N Koitiswar Singh's father, Late Justice N Ibotombi Singh worked at the Gauhati High Court.
-Justice Abhay S Oka's father Shreeniwas W Oka was a layer in Thane
-Justice Vikram Nath began his career as a third -generation lawyer while Justice MM Sindresh's father VK Muthusumy was a senior advocate in Madras
-Justice JB Pardiwala's great grand-father Navrojji Bhikhaji practiced in 1894 at Valsad.
-Just Sanjay Kumar's father P Ramachandra Reddy, is a former Advocate General of Andhra Pradesh.
-Justice Manoj Misra started as a third-generation lawyer while Justice PK Mishra's father was also a lawyer.
-Justice KV Viswanathan's father has been a public prosecutor in Coimbatore while Justice Ujjal Bhuyan's father SN Bhuyan was a senior advocate in Assam.
-Justice Joymalya Bagchi's father was also an advocate.
-CJI Justice BR Gavai comes from a non-legal background. His father was a politician. Justice Gavai's father Ramakrishna Suryabhan Gavai was a well-known Ambedkarite leader and founder of the Republican Party of India. His followers and admirers fondly called him Dadasaheb.
A Lok Sabha MP from Amravati, Ramakrishna Gavai served as Governor of Bihar, Sikkim, and Kerala between 2006 and 2011, when the Congress-led UPA was in power at the Centre.
-Justice SC Sharma's father, Dr BN Sharma was a veteran agriculturalist who taught at Jabalpur University.
Justice Gavai comes from a non-legal background, yet has risen to prominence in the judiciary.
-Justice R Mahadevan's father was a Tamil writer.
-Justice Manmohan's father was a bureaucrat-turned-politician Jagmogan. After working with the Congress party, Jagmohan joined the Bharatiya Janata Party in 1995. He served as Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and Goa, as the 5th Governor of Jammu and Kashmir, and for three terms as Member of Parliament for New Delhi. In the cabinet, he served as Union Minister for Urban Development and Tourism.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
After Supreme Court order, Noida starts to plug decade-old missing link
Noida: The Supreme Court has cleared the decks for the construction of a 200-metre stretch in the city that remained stalled for over a decade because of legal disputes over land acquisition in Hajipur village. The order will enable the completion of a vital link connecting sectors 99/100 with sectors 46/47. Most of the road project linking the sectors has been ready for years, except for the final disputed segment. The new connection is critical for commuters as it promises to ease traffic congestion by providing a direct route between sectors 46, 47, and 99 to sector 98, eliminating the current need for making long detours through sectors 100, 101, and Hajipur. The project hit a roadblock in 2003 when a villager, Hukum Singh, challenged the land acquisition notified in 2001-2002 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He moved the Allahabad high court, which dismissed the petition in Jan 2021 and noted that the land was already vested with the govt through an award passed by the land acquisition officer under Section 11A. You Can Also Check: Noida AQI | Weather in Noida | Bank Holidays in Noida | Public Holidays in Noida The court emphasised that while the interim order maintained a status quo over existing structures, it didn't halt the acquisition process. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trending in in 2025: Local network access control [Click Here] Esseps Learn More Undo Since the govt order on land wasn't separately challenged, the acquisition became final, and rendered the petition "inconsequential". After Singh died, his legal heirs approached the Supreme Court, seeking a stay on the road project. Here, too, a bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed the appeal on Nov 21 last year. "We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the high court," the SC bench observed. The apex court declined to examine "subsequent developments" as they weren't part of the original record or considered by the high court. However, it left room for the petitioners to pursue separate legal remedies for fresh issues if permitted under law. To complete the road, the Authority plans to remove illegal structures on the disputed land, which includes 10-12 shops, concrete buildings, and around 70 slum dwellings, with police help. "No case related to this matter is pending in any court. Our legal department has verified that. Considering public convenience and Noida's planned development, the construction of this road has become all the more essential," an Authority official said.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Centre's pick & choose policy hits HC judge appointments
Representative image NEW DELHI: Advocate Ramaswamy Neelakandan prepared for life as a high court judge by returning case files to clients after the CJI-led Supreme Court collegium on Jan 17, 2023, recommended to Union govt to appoint him, along with four other advocates, including L C Victoria Gowri, as judges of Madras high court. The Union govt appointed all of them as judges, except Neelakandan. Though names of the five advocates were sent by the SC collegium on the same day, the govt appointed them in batches - three on Feb 7, 2023, and the fourth on Feb 27, 2023. Neelakandan, who belongs to the OBC community, shares his fate with 28 other advocates, whose names were recommended to the govt by the collegium between Jan 2023 and April this year. The Centre's pick and choose policy has left them in suspense - whether to resume practice or keep waiting for the Centre's nod to become an HC judge. While Neelakandan's wait has stretched beyond 29 months, advocate Subhash Upadhyay, whose name was recommended by collegium on April 12, 2023, for judgeship in Uttarakhand HC, is waiting for his warrant of appointment for the last 26 months. Along with Upadhyay, the collegium had recommended names of three advocates and a judicial officer for appointment as judges of the HC. Only Upadhyay's name was left out. Like him, advocate Arun Kumar is awaiting action on collegium's May 9, 2023, recommendation for his appointment as Allahabad HC judge. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Birla Evara 3 and 4 BHK from ₹ 1.75 Crore* Birla Estates Learn More Undo On Oct 17, 2023, the collegium recommended the names of five advocates for appointment as judges of Madhya Pradesh HC. Among them, only advocate Amit Seth is still awaiting appointment. Of the 29 advocates still awaiting appointment as HC judges, five are women advocates. Among them, the one enduring the longest wait is advocate Shamima Jahan, whose name was recommended by the collegium on Jan 4, 2024, for appointment as a judge of Gauhati HC. Other women advocates sharing Jahan's fate are Sreeja Vijayalakshmi (name recommended on April 16, 2024), Tajal Vashi (Oct 15, 2024; Gujarat HC), Shwetasree Majumder (Aug 21, 2024; Delhi HC), and Sheetal Mirdha (March 5, 2025; Rajasthan HC). Despite successive chief justices, including the incumbent CJI B R Gavai, impressing upon the Union govt not to pick and choose from the list and avoid making staggered appointments from the same batch, the govt has not abandoned the practice which creates seniority issues in constitutional courts where merit and seniority are two crucial factors for career advancement. Interestingly, the collegium's recommendations for appointment of judges to Supreme Court have been speedily processed and implemented by the govt, in some cases the appointments have come through within three days of the recommendation. The collegium recommended to the govt on May 26 to appoint Justices N V Anjaria, Vijay Bishnoi and A S Chandurkar as judges of the SC. The three took oath as Supreme Court judges on May 30. On May 26, the collegium recommended appointments of chief justices to five HCs, transfers of four HC CJs and transfer and repatriation of 22 HC judges. More than a month later, govt is yet to give effect to the appointments and transfers of HC CJs and judges.
Mint
3 hours ago
- Mint
Will state bans on transgender athletes in women's sports be upheld? US Supreme Court to weigh in
The US Supreme Court agreed on Thursday (July 3) to hear challenges to state laws banning transgender athletes from girls' and women's sports. The high court said it will take up appeals involving laws enacted in Idaho and West Virginia that prohibit athletes who were assigned male at birth from competing on female teams in public schools and universities. The cases will be heard during the term that begins in October, with a ruling expected next year. The court's decision to hear the cases comes amid a wave of legislation across the country and intensifying political debate on the issue. Idaho's 2020 law, called the Fairness in Women's Sports Act, was blocked by lower courts after a lawsuit by a transgender university athlete who argued the ban violated constitutional rights to equal protection. Similarly, West Virginia's 2021 law was struck down after a middle school student challenged her exclusion from the girls' track team, with an appeals court ruling it violated Title IX, the federal law barring sex-based discrimination in education. More than two dozen Republican-led states have enacted similar restrictions in recent years. Supporters say the bans are needed to protect fairness in women's sports. Critics argue they are discriminatory and deny transgender youth equal opportunities. Joshua Block, senior counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the challengers, said the laws target already vulnerable children. 'We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play,' Block said. 'Like any other educational program, school athletic programs should be accessible for everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status.' The court's move follows a series of recent legal and political actions on transgender rights. Last month, the Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming medical care for minors. The Supreme Court's decision comes amid broader efforts by President Donald Trump to restrict transgender rights. President Donald Trump, who made the issue a centerpiece of his campaign, signed an executive order in February banning transgender athletes from girls' and women's sports at schools receiving federal funding. 'From now on women's sports will be only for women,' Trump declared. 'With this executive order the war on women's sports is over.' The order also allows federal agencies to cut funding to schools that violate the policy. The Department of Education has since enforced the order by investigating schools, including the University of Pennsylvania, which recently agreed to ban transgender athletes from women's teams as part of a Title IX settlement related to swimmer Lia Thomas. The Supreme Court will hear arguments during its next term starting in October. The eventual ruling could set nationwide precedent on whether schools must allow transgender girls to participate in female sports under the Constitution and Title IX.
