Honorable Smt. Justice Sujata Vasant Manohar was the first lady to become a Judge on the bench of Bombay High Court. She was also the first woman Chief Justice of Bombay High Court and she took her oath at the office on 15th January 1994.

BACKGROUND

Justice Sujata Manohar was born on born 28 August 1934. She attended Anandilal Podar High School in Bombay and later went to attend Elphinstone College in Bombay, Lady Margaret Hall in Oxford, United Kingdom, and Lincoln’s Inn in London. Her Ladyship Justice Sujata V. Manohar comes from a distinguished legal family. Her father was Mr. K.T. Desai who served as the chief justice of the Gujarat High Court. After a distinguished academic record, her Ladyship enrolled as an advocate in Bombay on February 14, 1958.

JUDICIAL CAREER

Her Ladyship practised law in the Bombay High Court’s Original Side after being called to the bar from Lincon’s Inn. During the 1970–71 fiscal year, her Ladyship was appointed Assistant Government Pleader, City Civil Court, Bombay. With effect from January 23, 1978, Her Ladyship was appointed as an additional judge of the Bombay High Court. On November 28, 1978, she was appointed as a permanent judge. From 5.1.94. Her Ladyship served as the Bombay High Court’s Chief Justice. With effect from 21.4.1994, her Ladyship assumed the position of Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court. Her Ladyship retired on August 28, 1999, after being raised to the position of Judge of the Supreme Court of India with effect from November 8, 1994. Her Ladyship was one of the two High Court Judges from India who were chosen to take part in the Patent Trial course that was held in Beijing in December 1986 under the sponsorship of the WIPO and the UN. At the World Women’s Congress for a Healthy Planet, held in Miami, Florida, in November 1991, organized to develop Women’s Action Agenda 21, Her Ladyship was called as one of five women judges from around the world to form a tribunal for recording evidence and giving judgments. She signed the Declaration of Miami. Her Ladyship was one of the three representatives chosen by the Indian government to attend the International Conference on Law, Social Development, and Social Welfare, which was held in West Berlin in 1988 under the sponsorship of the International Council of Social Work. Her Ladyship also served as the First Chairperson of the Board of Visitors at the Judicial Officers Training Institute in Nagpur and worked on the Special Group of Family Law. Additionally, Justice Sujata was also the chairperson of the Bombay High Court’s Committee of Judges, which was formed to establish family courts in Maharashtra.

Some Judgements by Sujata V. Manohar-

In “Ms.Kamini Jaiswal, Advocate vs Union Of India & Ors”, the petitioner was a practicing advocate, she filed a petition under article 32 of constitution of India (Remedies for enforcement of rights). The respondents are the Gas Authority of India Ltd. (GAIL), the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC) the Central Pollution Control Board and the Union of India. The petitioner in this case claimed that that certain designated locations along the high-pressure gas pipelines built by GAIL and/or ONGC are unsafe and perhaps dangerous along with other flaws. The petitioner asked the pipelines to be shut down until an impartial investigation by professionals deems them safe for continued operation. The appeal was submitted in response to a gas leak that occurred on or around July 8, 1993, near Dhaula Kuan in Delhi, from a GAIL high pressure gas pipeline. GAIL in response to that submitted an affidavit. It laid down three reports of experts in connection with the laying of the DESU-Maruti Spurline as also in connection with the safety of its pipeline system. GAIL also furnished technical material in connection with the allegations made by the petitioner. The court after looking at the detailed information presented by GAIL decided not to take any further action. GAIL has also been making an effort to relieve the petitioner’s concerns because of that the court believed further instructions are not necessary.

In “State Of Haryana & Ors vs Jasmer Singh & Ors”, the appeal has been filed by the State of Haryana against the various rulings by the Punjab and Haryana High Court that granted daily wage employees of the State of Haryana the same salary as those who held regular positions in the government service. The State of Haryana has hired the respondents as Mali-cum Chowkidars/Pump Operators on a daily salary basis since various dates. The respondents sought to be paid the same wage as that given to regularly employed individuals holding comparable positions in the services of the State of Haryana on the basis of “same compensation for equal labor.” The High Court granted this request and ordered the State of Haryana to pay the respondents the same salary and benefits that are provided to regular employees who occupy comparable positions, effective as of the dates the respondents were hired for the positions they currently hold. The Supreme Court bench in reference to various cases held that the High Court was not right in directing that the respondents should be paid equal wages and allowances as that of regular employees holding similar positions with effect from the dates when the respondents were employed as the respondents in the present appeal are not required to meet the age requirements at the time of recruiting or to meet the qualifications requirements set forth for regular employees. They are not chosen in the same way that ordinary employees are. In other words, the selection criteria are not as strict. As a result, the respondents in the current appeals who are paid on a daily basis cannot be compared to those who work for the State of Haryana on a regular basis and occupy comparable positions. If such workers are subject to a minimum wage requirement, the respondents would be eligible for it if it is more than what they are already receiving.

REFRENCES

• CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. SUJATA VASANT MANOHAR, High Court of Bombay, https://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/cjshow.php?bhcpar=amdldGlkPTI3JnBhZ2Vubz0y
• State Of Haryana & Ors vs Jasmer Singh & Ors
• Ms.Kamini Jaiswal, Advocate vs Union Of India & Ors

Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.

IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.

Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter  Youtube and Instagram.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at secondinnings.hr@gmail.com

In the year 2021, we wrote about 1000 Inspirational Women In India, in the year 2022, we would be featuring 5000 Start Up Stories.