Lekha G
Justice Mohan Shantanagoudar, a strong proponent of rational and critical thinking who contributed greatly to the Indian Judiciary passed away at the age of 62 years on April 24.
Before he was appointed in Supreme Court in February 2017, he served as Chief Justice of Kerala High Court. His parent High Court was Karnataka High Court.
He has left a significant effect through various striking judgments during his tenure at the Supreme Court.
In Indore Development Authority Case, that dealt with Section 24 of the new land acquisition law, Justice suggested to refer the matter to a larger bench pointing out the impropriety of the bench overruling a precedent laid down by a co-ordinate bench.
In Amitabha Dasgupta V United Bank of India, he issued guidelines for assuring safe custody of valuables in bank lockers that bank owed a duty of care to maintain and operate such lockers.
In High Court of Judicature at Madras V M.C. Subramaniam, a bench led by Justice Shantanagoudar held that parties can get refund of court fees who settle their cases through private mediation other than the modes contemplated under Section 89 of C.P.C.
In M Ravindran V Intelligence Officer, a bench led by Justice Shantanagoudar along with Justice UU Lalit and Justice Vineet Saran held that its the magistrates duty to inform accused of his right to avail default bail.
It was also held that subsequent filing of chargesheet seeking extension of time does not defeat this right, once it has occurred.
In M/s Nandan Biomatrix Ltd V S Ambika Devi, a landmark judgment by Justice Shantanagoudar held that a farmer’s buying of seed cannot be held as a commercial purpose. He also threw light on difficulties faced by farmers and their oppression by big corporates.
Examining the agreements of farmers with big corporates he said, “This can result in a situation where small and medium scale farmers find themselves trapped in contracts where they buy expensive seeds which turn out to be defective, resulting in a failed season and severe financial hardship. The problem of indebtedness further worsens the plight of the farmer, and, all too often, manifests in tragedy of suicide. Farmer suicides are indeed a systematic issue that has persisted, and perhaps worsened, over the last few decades”.
In Shaik Mukhtar V State of Andhra Pradesh, he ruled that courts cannot punish a person with no legal representative and can appoint an Amicus curiae or refer matter to Legal Services Committee requesting to appoint an advocate.
In Taj Mahal Hotel V United India Insurance Company Ltd, it was held that hotels cannot escape from liability for theft of vehicle given for valet parking by ‘owner’s risk’ clause.
In Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust V M/S Unique Shanti Developers, safeguarding individual’s right Justice Shantanagoudar held the provision of hostel facilities to nurses to facilitate better medical care.
Justice Shantanagoudar was also part of numerous benches which referred crucial legal matters to larger benches such as
1.Whether reservation claims for public post can be considered after last date of submission of community certificates?
2.Whether Section 340 of CrPC mandate a preliminary inquiry to the would-be accused before a complaint filed under Section 195 of Code of court?
3.Can death of complainant without giving evidence be fatal to prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act?
He strongly advocated for preserving rich diversity of the country and highlighted the need to promote universality and empathy to fight hatred and prejudice.
In his speech at NUALS Kochi, “The current global political climate is governed by fear and hatred of the Other. The ‘Other’ is anyone who is not the same as oneself on any perceived marker of identity such as nationality, religion, caste, ethnicity, skin colour, language, sex or gender, and so on,” he said.
The demise of Justice Shantanagoudar is indeed a great loss to the Indian Judiciary.