Justice Hima Kohli retired on September 1, 2024, wrapping up an impactful and distinguished three-year tenure at the Supreme Court of India. Justice Kohli leaves behind a remarkable legacy, having penned 40 judgments and participated in 207 benches, that showcase her active role in the judiciary.
Her judicial journey began with six judgments in her first year, a lower volume of activity attributed to her appointment in the last quarter of 2021. This was followed by a prolific second year where she authored 20 judgments and served on 95 benches. She maintained a commendable authorship rate despite a slight decline in her third year, closing out her tenure with five judgments in her final year. Justice Kohli’s contributions have significantly shaped Indian jurisprudence, reflecting her dedication to justice and the rule of law.
Let’s take a look at some of the most notable judgments she delivered during her time on the bench.
Legislative and Executive powers over Services of Delhi Government:
Judgment Name: Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Union of India (May 11, 2023)
Justice Kohli was part of a landmark five-judge Constitution Bench that upheld the powers of the Delhi government over its civil servants and the day-to-day administration, except in areas related to police, land, and public order. The ruling clarified the distinct “sui generis” status of the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi under Article 239AA, setting it apart from other Union Territories.
Justice Kohli’s role in this case showed her commitment to backing democratic governance and protecting the autonomy of the elected officials. This decision has fuelled ongoing political and constitutional debates, particularly related to the Union Ordinance that is now scrutinized for possibly violating Article 239AA.
Effective implementation of the POSH Act:
Judgment Name: Aureliano Fernandes vs. State of Goa and Others (May 12, 2023)
Justice Kohli played a key role in advancing the effective implementation of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act). As part of a Division Bench, she delivered significant directives in the case of Aureliano Fernandes vs. State of Goa, emphasizing the need for strict enforcement of the PoSH Act, even after a decade of its enactment.
Justice Kohli highlighted the flaws in the Act’s implementation. She stressed upon the need for a proper constitution of Internal Committees (ICs) in both public and private sectors, regular training for committee members, and increased awareness for women employees about their rights under the Act. Her judgment underscored that without rigorous adherence by state and non-state actors, the PoSH Act’s purpose of ensuring dignity and respect for women in the workplace would remain unfulfilled.
Legal Recognition for Same-sex Marriages:
Judgment Name: Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty vs. Union of India (October 17, 2023)
Justice Hima Kohli was part of the five-judge Constitution Bench that ruled 3:2 against recognising same-sex, non-heterosexual unions. While all judges agreed that homosexuality is not just an “urban or elite” phenomenon, they differed on whether to grant legal recognition to same-sex unions or marriages.
Justice Kohli supported the majority view, concluding that while it is unfair that queer persons lack certain legal entitlements which is discriminatory, the Court lacked authority to create a new legal framework for them. Her bench stated that the Constitution does not guarantee a fundamental right to marriage. The decision also stated that it is the legislature’s matter, not the courts or judiciary to create a legal status for same-sex partnerships. This ruling sparked an ongoing debate, with related petitions under judicial review.
Patanjali Ayurved-Misleading Advertisement Case:
Judgment Name: Patanjali Ayurved Limited Through its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna and Baba Ramdev (August 13, 2024)
Justice Hima Kohli was part of a two-judge bench that handled contempt proceedings against Patanjali Ayurved, its MD Acharya Balkrishna, and co-founder Baba Ramdev over misleading medical advertisements. The Supreme Court criticized them for breaching their earlier legal pledge by continuing to publish such ads.
In the final judgment, Justice Kohli accepted their unconditional apology, though the court noted that the apology was initially delayed and qualified. She focused that any future breach of their undertakings would result in strict consequences. She warned that contempt proceedings could be swiftly reinitiated. The ruling stressed the importance of providing sincere and unqualified apologies in court proceedings.
Justice Kohli also imposed more stricter advertising rules, that direct broadcasters and media to file self-declarations to adhere to advertising regulations. She also added consequences for celebrities and influencers for promoting misleading products.
Disqualification proceedings against MLAs:
Judgment Name: Subhash Desai vs. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra & Ors. (May 11, 2023)
Justice Kohli has played a pivotal role in the ongoing legal battle between the Thackeray and Shinde factions of the Shiv Sena. The conflict that arose in 2022 when Eknath Shinde led a rebellion against Uddhav Thackeray’s leadership, triggering disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law).
Justice Kohli is part of the 5-judge Constitution Bench handling key constitutional questions, including the Governor’s authority to call a floor test and the application of the Nabam Rebia precedent. The May 2023 ruling, where the Bench found the Governor lacked grounds for a floor test, left the disqualification decision to the Speaker. Her involvement highlights her influence in shaping constitutional interpretations related to political defections, disqualification proceedings, and the balance of power between the judiciary and legislative bodies.
Justice Hima Kohli’s time at the Supreme Court left a lasting impression through her involvement in landmark cases that have shaped the nation’s legal landscape in profound ways. Her judgments maintain a balance between constitutional principles and judicial restraint, particularly in significant matters like reproductive rights and the governance of the Delhi government. Certain rulings have drawn public debates, like the split verdict on abortion and the same-sex marriage case, however, they also highlight her approach of respecting the boundaries of judicial intervention and leaving certain matters to the legislature. Her judgments with regard to gender rights, drug laws, and executive power underscore the commitment she showcases while delivering justice, with a keen consciousness of legal and moral responsibility.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The content may not reflect the most current legal developments and is not guaranteed to be accurate, complete, or up-to-date. Readers should consult a qualified legal professional before taking any action based on the information provided. The authors and publishers disclaim any liability for any loss or damage incurred as a result of reliance on this article. This article does not create an attorney-client relationship.