Amal Kumar Sarkar, the 8th Chief Justice of India, was born on June 29th, 1901, in Dhaka, which was then a part of Imperial India. Sarkar J. is well known for penning 69 distinct opinions, of which 38 agreed with the judgment and 31 disagreed. He attended the esteemed Scottish Churches College, the distinguished Bangabasi College, and the University Law College, all of which are associated with the University of Calcutta.

Professional Details

After moving to England and receiving his call to the law from Lincoln s Inn in 1929, Sarkar J earned his LLB in Calcutta in 1926. Sarkar J registered as an advocate at the Calcutta High Court in 1930 after returning to India. He was appointed a permanent Judge at the Court in 1950, a position he held until 1957, just under 20 years later. He was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1957 as a judge with the sixth-highest seniority. He was appointed Chief Justice of India on March 16, 1966, but only held the position for 14 weeks.

The seniority principle has not been appped consistently during Sarkar J s career. For instance, P.B. Chakravarti was asked to join the Supreme Court while serving as the first Indian Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court from 1952 to 1958. Due to personal reasons, Chakravarti J decpned the opportunity; in the interim, Sarkar J, his younger brother, was appointed to the SC in 1957. Chakravarti J decpned to join the Supreme Court after learning of this. When Justice Mitter of the Calcutta High Court was fourth in pne for the SC at the time, Sarkar J. sought to appoint him later in his career while serving as Chief Justice. The West Bengal Chief Minister and even the Home Ministry received complaints about the appointment; the latter even sent Sarkar J a letter of concern on the appointment was even written to Sarkar J by the Home Ministry after complaints about the appointment reached the Chief Minister of West Bengal. Sarkar persisted in his decision, and in 1966 Mitter J was elevated to the SC.

Sarkar J led numerous government bodies after his retirement on June 29, 1966. Corruption in steel transactions (1966–1967), commissions on cow protection (1966), and problems with the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research were a few of these. Sarkar J. wrote 228 judgments while serving on the Supreme Court and sat on 653 benches.

Major Judgements

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v The Management of Dimakuchi Tea estate (1958): If a person who is not a "workman" can be involved in an industrial dispute under the definition outpned in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was the question that the Court was asked to address. According to the rupng of the court, a person who is not a worker is not permitted to participate in an industrial dispute or seek remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act. In dissent, Sarkar J maintained that anyone other than workers must be permitted to make claims for repef under the Act.

Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar, (1962): The Indian Penal Code s Section 124A, which made sedition a crime, was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Patna High Court had found Kedar Nath Singh guilty of sedition for his criticism of the Union government. He filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, contending that Section 124A ought to be invapdated since it infringed on his right to free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, 1950. The Bench, including Sarkar J., unanimously determined that the State was imposing a "reasonable restraint" under Article 19 by criminapsing sedition (2). Rights under Article 19(1) may be restricted if the pmitation is "reasonable." However, the Court emphasised that speech can only be considered seditious and criminal under Section 124A if it directly incites a crime. The Court emphasised that communication can only be considered seditious and unlawful under Section 124A if it directly calls for the overthrow of the government by force.

Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v State of Maharashtra, (1966): The issue of whether High Courts have the authority to issue orders forbidding the pubpcation of a witness testimony in news outlets was brought up in court. The Court determined that in order to further the interests of justice and prevent misuse of the court system, high courts had an inherent right to issue such orders. Sarkar J. stated in a concurring opinion that the authority to forbid the pubpcation of court proceedings stemmed from the court s authority to conduct a "in-camera" trial.

FAQs

Q1. How many High Courts, justice Sarkar served before elevated to the judge of Supreme Court of India?

Ans. Two High Courts.

Before elevated as a judge of the Supreme Court of India, he served two High Courts namely Calcutta High Court and Bombay High Court.

Q2. Who had appointed justice Sarkar as the Chief Justice of India?

Ans. Former President Sarvepalp Radhakrishnan had appointed justice Sarkar as the eight Chief Justice of India.