Judge of the Supreme Court of India
NAME – Ajay Manikrao Khanwilkar
PROFESSION- Judge
BORN – 30/07/1957
PLACE OF BIRTH – Pune, Maharashtra
FATHER’S NAME – N/A
MOTHER’S NAME – N/A
SPOUSE – Sanjaya Khanwilkar
SIBLINGS – N/A
CHILDREN – 3
EDUCATION – Bachelor of Commerce from Mulund College of Commerce
Graduated in Bachelor of Laws from K.C. Law College, Mumbai University
AWARDS – N/A
SPECIALISATION- Civil, Criminal and Constitutional Law
COMMITTEE/ PANEL HEADED- Member of the Task force (headed by E. S. Venkataramaiah ) for examining the amendments needed in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in 1995
BACKGROUND – A.M. Khanwilkar is a judge at the Supreme Court of India. He has previously been the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, judge in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Amicus Curiae in the famous case of MC Mehta and the standing Counsel for Election Commission of India in 1995.
He was born in Pune in 1957, and completed his education from Mumbai.
CAREER TIMELINE –
1982- Enrolled as Advocate
1984- Practiced in the Supreme Court
2000- Appointed as Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court
2001- Confirmed as permanent judge
2013- Appointed as Chief Justice of the High court of Himachal Pradesh
2013- Appointed as Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court
2016- Elevated to Supreme Court
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS-
Government of NCT v. Union of Delhi-
In this case, a five-judge bench, which included K.M. Khanwilkar, held that the words ‘any matter’ as per clause (4) of Article 239AA should not be construed to mean ‘every matter’. In this regard, the power of the Lieutenant General is an exception to the general norm, and therefore curtailed.
The Lieutenant General cannot refer every matter to the Council of Ministers and the President without taking its specific issues in consideration. By way of this judgement, the Court upheld the Constitutional values of collaborative federalism and constitutional balance.
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India-
In this case, the court rejected the Government’s order requiring National Eligibility cum-Entrance Test to produce their Aadhar numbers.
he Court held that the students could not be compelled to register only through their Aadhar numbers as it would amount to violation of the fundamental right to privacy. Instead, the Court directed the Central Board of Secondary Education to accept registration done by producing other identification proofs such as ration card, passport, voter ID, driving licence and bank account.
Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India-
A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that the disclosure of prior criminal cases of of contesting candidates is mandatory in a democratic nation.
The Court emphasized on the voter’s right to a ‘free and fair’ election, which is made possible by an informed choice. This case is considered to be paving the way for the decriminalization of politics.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India-
This case is one of the most important judgments in the Indian legal history. The Court, in the present case, struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which criminalized same-sex relations. The Court held the Section to be violative of Sections 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitutional, and hence ultra vires.
CONTROVERSIES (IF ANY)- A. M. Khanwilkar recused himself in 2018 from hearing a 13-year-old PIL petition which sought to challenge the Delhi High Court’s discharge of industrialists Hindujas in the Bofors guns pay-off case, citing personal reasons.
REMARKABLE ACHIEVEMENTS- N/A