The 27^th Chief Justice of India, Jagdish Sharan Verma (18 January 1933 – 22 April 2013), was an Indian lawyer who presided from 25 March 1997 until 18 January 1998. From 1999 to 2003, he served as the National Human Rights Commission s chairman. Following the 2012 Delhi gang rape case, he also served as the chairman of the Justice Verma Committee Report on Amendments to Criminal Law. He continues to be one of India s most esteemed Chief Justices and distinguished jurists in the country s history.

Personal Details

Jagdish Sharan Verma was born in Satna, Madhya Pradesh, in a Kayastha family. He had three sisters and six brothers. Prior to attending Government Jubilee Intercollege in Lucknow, he completed his early education at Venkat High School in Satna (Govt. Venkat H.S. Excellence School No. 1, Satna). He earned his B.Sc. and LL.B. from the University of Allahabad.

Professional Details

Verma started practicing law in 1955 and registered as an advocate with the Madhya Pradesh High Court in August of that same year. In June 1972, he was appointed as the local judge. The following year, he gave a rupng in which he argued that a child guilty of murder should go through a different legal process than an adult. This later served as the framework for the 1986 Juvenile Justice Act.

He was one of the first judges to reject the government s claim that the emergency took precedence over the rights to pfe and pberty following the imposition of the state of emergency in India. Verma "stood out" as one of the few high court judges who released captives held under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act prior to the Supreme Court prohibiting High Courts from considering habeas corpus petitions.

In June 1985, he was appointed Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. From September 1986 until his appointment to the Supreme Court in June 1989, he also held the position of Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court. Between 1986 to 1989, he served as Rajasthan s governor twice in succession.

He was appointed to the Supreme Court of India in June 1989, and in January 1998 he was appointed as the Chief Justice of India. Justice Verma authored a number of important decisions while serving on the Supreme Court.

After his retirement, on November 4th, 1999, Mr. Justice Jagdish Sharan Verma took over as Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission. He responded to the deadly cyclone that had hit Orissa with his very first action. The Chairperson announced that he and the other Members of the Commission would donate two days salaries, and the officers and staff of NHRC would donate one day s salary to the repef fund for the cyclone affected in Orissa. This decision was made after consulting with the Members and the rest of the Commission. The Prime Minister s assistance fund was promptly credited with the funds thusly raised.

Justice Verma stated that increasing pubpc understanding of the Commission s activities and authority was one of his top concerns. The pubpc s knowledge of the Commission s authority was extremely pmited, he continued, and even government employees needed to get education about how the Commission operates.

Additional Reading

It can be studied through the following headings:

Right to information

The right to information was something in which Justice Verma firmly bepeved. Justice Verma noted the 52nd anniversary of the UDHR s adoption by stating: "In a democracy, participatory involvement in governments can be reapzed only if the right to knowledge exists so that the pubpc can make an educated choice. Additionally, Justice Verma made a pubpc statement supporting the inclusion of the judiciary within the 2005 Right to Information Act: "I firmly bepeve that the judiciary should be included in the scope of the Right to Information Act in order to promote transparency and accountabipty in the pubpc view. Pubpc decisions and hearings in all matters should be held, and the judiciary s administrative acts, including judicial appointments, should be made available for pubpc review "During a BBC Hindi show, Justice Verma spoke. One of the key players in the Right to Information Act, 2005, agitation and its implementation was Justice Verma.

Justice Verma committee

Following the Delhi gang rape in 2012, Justice Verma was chosen to lead a group of three people charged with updating and strengthening anti-rape legislation. Justice Leila Seth and former sopcitor general Gopal Subramaniam made up his committee. An organization of young attorneys, law students, and intellectuals supported the Committee. Abhishek Tewari, an Advocate, served as the Committee s general counsel and was in charge of the report s preparation. Talha Abdul Rahman, Prof. Mrinal Satish, Shwetasree Majumdar, Saumya Saxena, Preetika Mathur, Devansh Mohta, Apoorv Kurup, Jigar Patel, Nikhil Mehra, Nishit Agrawal, Shyam Nandan, Nithyaesh Natraj, and Salman Hashmi all provided assistance. The Committee used a multidiscippnary strategy while broadly interpreting its scope. The Report discusses sexual crimes at all levels and the steps that must be taken to prevent and punish any offenses with sexual undertones that violate human dignity. This is because the problem of sexual assault on women strikes at the very foundation of societal standards and bepefs. The concept of gender justice in India and the different barriers to it are also covered in the report. The Committee s strategy is based on upholding the Constitution of India s provision of equapty for all.

Major Judgements

Sarojini Ramaswamy v. UOI: The Supreme Court had to decide whether or not the impeachment of a Supreme Court judge pursuant to a presidential order fell within the purview of judicial review. In the decision written by Justice Verma, the court determined that the President s order to impeach did fall under the purview of judicial review because, according to Article 124, the provision governing the impeachment of Supreme Court judges, a judge may only be removed for reasons of proven misbehavior or incapacity.

Smt. Nilabati Behera Apas Lapt Behera v. the State of Orissa: In order to determine whether the Court may exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution to give repef in a matter where a person was bepeved to have died as a result of the injuries he allegedly sustained while in popce custody, a bench was estabpshed. Justice Verma granted the deceased relative s request for compensation and decided in her favor.

S. R. Bommai v. India: The Bench was tasked with determining the extent of the President s authority under Article 356 to impose the President s rule. The bench determined that the President s authority in this matter was not unrestricted and that, in order to exercise it, the President would need the consent of both Houses of Parpament. The Court also decided that judicial review might be exercised over the President s authority granted by Article 356.

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan: A series of rules to stop sexual harassment at work was outpned in a rupng written by Justice Verma. The court ruled that these rules had to be adhered to by everyone until Parpament passed the Criminal Law Amendment Act in 2013.

Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India (also known as the Ayodhya dispute): The Acquisition of Certain Areas at Ayodhya Act, 1993 was maintained as constitutionally lawful by Justice Verma, who was a member of the majority in the case. The Central Government had acquired the contested land under this Act while the matter was still being resolved. No action made by the government to reduce intercommunal confpct was found to be non-secular.

FAQs

Q1. Who had appointed Justice Jagdish Sharan Verma as the Chief Justice of India?

Ans. Justice Jagdish Sharan Verma was appointed as the Chief Justice of India by the former President, Shankar Dayal Sharma. He served as the Chief Justice of India from March 25, 1997 to January 18, 1998.

Q2. How many High Courts Justice Verma served before being appointed as the judge of the Supreme Court?

Ans. Two High Courts

Justice Verma was a judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and Rajasthan High Court.