New Delhi:Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi, who presided over the Supreme Court bench for the last time on Friday, etched his name in the annals of history this week by giving some of the most important verdicts on politically sensitive issues in recent times like that of NRC (National Registry of Citizens), Ayodhya land dispute, entry of women into Sabarimala temple, to name a few.
CJI Gogoi to bid farewell to SC: A look at his career and some significant verdicts When he took charge of office back in 2018, several crucial cases like the Ayodhya land title dispute, the plea challenging the special status of Jammu and Kashmir, and Assam's NRC case were pending to be taken to their conclusion, all of which have been dealt with close to his last working day on Friday.
The first person to be from the northeast to be appointed to the top post of the judiciary, Gogoi has enjoyed the reputation as a 'no-nonsense' administrator.
Early Life of Justice Gogoi
The 64-year-old 46th CJI of India is the son of former Assam chief minister Kesab Chandra Gogoi and was born in Dibrugarh.
He studied history at Delhi University's prestigious St Stephen's College and completed his law from Delhi University.
He enrolled in Gauhati High Court in 1978, where he practised constitutional law, taxation and company matters before being transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, where he became its Chief Justice.
On 23 April 2012, he was elevated as a Judge of the Supreme Court and on 3 October 2018, he was appointed as Chief Justice of India, succeeding Dipak Misra.
A look at CJI Gogoi's career and some significant verdicts Here's a list of some of the most important cases dealt by Justice Gogoi
Ayodhya title dispute
A five-judge bench headed by him on November 9 brought the curtains down on the Ayodhya land dispute, which dates back to even before the Supreme Court came into existence in 1950.
Delivering a unanimous verdict on a case that has long polarised the country, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the apex court headed by Gogoi said the faith of Hindus that Lord Ram was born at the site was undisputed, and he is symbolically the owner of the land.
The apex court on November 9 awarded a Hindu group the ownership of a centuries-old religious site, while ordering the allotment of an alternative piece of five acres of land to the Muslims for a mosque.
Sabarimala review petition
The CJI also headed a bench which, by a majority 3:2 verdict, referred to a larger 7-judge bench the pleas seeking review of the apex court's historic 2018 judgement allowing women and girls of all ages to enter Kerala's Sabarimala temple.
On 14 November, the Supreme Court said restrictions on women in religious places were not limited to Sabarimala alone and was prevalent in other places of worship as well, as it referred the matter to a seven-judge bench.
The apex court said the judgment by a larger seven-judge bench will re-examine various religious issues, including the entry of women into the Sabarimala temple and mosques and the practice of female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community.
The court did not stay its 28 September 2018 verdict, which had lifted the ban on women of all ages from entering the famous Ayyappa shrine in Kerala.
SC and CJI's office under RTI regime
A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Justice Gogoi held in its verdict on November 13 that the office of the CJI is a "public authority" under the Right to Information Act, but "judicial independence has to be kept in mind" while disclosing information in "public interest".
The majority judgement, however, held that judicial independence has to be kept in mind while dealing with transparency and that while a recommendation by the Collegium on names of judges can be disclosed, the reasons cannot come under the purview.
Rafale review petition
Justice Gogoi's name will also be remembered for heading a three-judge bench which gave clean chits to the Modi government twice - first on the writ petition and then on Thursday on the pleas seeking review of the December 14, 2018 verdict - in the sensitive Rafale fighter jet deal with the French aviation firm Dassault Aviation.
The court held that the pleas were without merit.
In the 14 December 2018 order, the Supreme Court had said that there was no reason to doubt the decision-making process in the procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets and gave a clean chit to the Narendra Modi-led government at the Centre.
The court had also dismissed the plea for a court-monitored probe into alleged irregularities in the deal for procurement of the jets. It had also said that it was not their job to go into the issue of pricing of the fighter planes.
The bench also warned Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for wrongly attributing certain remarks to the apex court in the Rafale case to be more careful in future, in response to a contempt petition filed by BJP leader Meenakshi Lekhi against Gandhi for wrongly attributing his ‘chowkidar chor hai’ slogan to the court.
Lekhi had accused Gandhi of misquoting the 10 April order of the apex court in which it had allowed additional leaked documents to be put on record as evidence in the Rafale case.
Finance Bill petition
A five-judge Constitution bench headed by him struck down in entirety the rules formulated by the Centre on appointment and service conditions for members of various tribunals, and referred to a larger bench the issue of examining the validity of the passage of the Finance Act 2017 as Money Bill.
A mixed legacy
Justice Gogoi's tenure as CJI was not free of controversy as he faced allegations of sexual harassment, of which he was cleared.
A three-judge in-house committee probing the allegations of sexual harassment against CJI Ranjan Gogoi gave a clean chit to the Chief Justice of India, saying it found "no substance" in the sexual harassment allegations.
A former SC employee alleged that the CJI had sexually harassed her in his office premises and thereafter her family was adversely affected in terms of loss of jobs and other such institutional torments.
This was mentioned in a sworn affidavit that she submitted to 22 Supreme Court judges. The alleged incident occurred in October 2018.
After the CJI was given a clean chit, the complainant, in a statement, said, "Today, my worst fears have come true, and all hopes of justice and redress from the highest court of the land have been shattered."
CJI Gogoi also drew flak for publicly defending the contentious National Register of Citizens (NRC) exercise in Assam.
Addressing the launch of a book titled ‘Postcolonial Assam 1947-2019’ by documentary filmmaker and author Mrinal Talukdar, the CJI said: “Assam NRC is not a document of the moment… But a base document for the future. A document on which we can determine future claims… 19 lakh or 40 lakh is not the point.”
The statements evoked a sharp response, especially on social media, with many saying the CJI should not have made such comments publicly, especially considering the controversial and political nature of the NRC exercise.
Justice Gogoi also led a bench which monitored and ensured that NRC exercise in Assam, his native state, is completed within the set timeframe.
Gogoi, who was the then the second-senior-most member of the Collegium, before being promoted to the post of CJI, had courted controversy by joining three other senior-most judges of the apex court in holding a press conference on January 12, 2018, in which they virtually revolted against his predecessor Justice Dipak Misra.
He later remarked at a public function that "independent judges and noisy journalists are democracy's first line of defence".
A "revolution, not reform" was needed to keep the institution of judiciary serviceable for the common man, Justice Gogoi had said at the same function.
As the CJI, he took tough decisions against erring judges and recommended their transfers and a woman high court judge was virtually forced to resign.
Also Read:CJI office under ambit of RTI Act, rules SC
