Know Thy Judge| Justice Alok Aradhe: 6th Chief Justice of Telangana High Court

Early Life and Career as an Advocate¹

Justice Alok Aradhe was born on 13-04-1964 at Raipur, Chhattisgarh. He earned a degree in Bachelor of Science (B. Sc.) and LLB and got enrolled as an advocate on 12-07-1988.

Justice Aradhe was designated as Senior Advocate in April 2007 and majorly practiced in Civil, Constitutional, Arbitration and Company Matters in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur.

He also had the privilege of serving as a Visiting Faculty in Judicial Officers Training and Research Institute to address Judicial officers on various issues.

Career as a Judge ²

Justice Alok Aradhe was appointed as Additional Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on 29-12-2009 and was made Permanent Judge on 15-02-2011.

He was transferred to the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and took oath of office on 20-09-2016. Justice Aradhe also performed the duties of Acting Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir High Court from 11-05-2018 to 10-08-2018. Justice Alok Aradhe was nominated as Chairman of Jammu and Kashmir State Judicial Academy on 07-06-2017 and on 04-09-2018, he was also nominated as Executive Chairman of Jammu and Kashmir State Legal Services Authority.

Upon being transferred to Karnataka High Court, Justice Aradhe took oath as Judge on 17-11-2018. He further assumed charge as the Acting Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court from 03-07-2022 to 14-10-2022. During his tenure as Judge of Karnataka High Court, Justice Aradhe also served as the President of Bangalore Mediation Centre, Arbitration and Conciliation Centre and President of Karnataka Judicial Academy.³

Another feather on his cap was attained when he was recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium for the prestigious position of Chief Justice of Telangana High Court. The Supreme Court Collegium Resolution dated 05-07-2023⁴ recommending Justice Aradhe as the highest authority in Telangana High Court stated:

“Justice Alok Aradhe is now a senior puisne Judge in his parent High Court. He has been functioning, on transfer since November 2018 as a Judge of the Karnataka High Court and has acquired experience of more than 13 years in dispensing justice in two large High Courts.

Having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the considered view that Justice Alok Aradhe is fit and suitable in all respects to be appointed as Chief Justice of the High Court for the State of Telangana.”

The afore-stated recommendation being accepted by the Law Ministry, consequently the President of India on 19-07-2023, appointed Justice Alok Aradhe as Chief Justice of Telangana High Court; and on 23-07-2023, Justice Aradhe took oath of office the High Court’s 6th Chief Justice.⁵

Notable Decisions by Justice Alok Aradhe⁶

Principle of comity of courts is salutary in nature and cannot override the consideration of best interest and welfare of the child: Karnataka High Court

While deciding the instant petition seeking transference of physical custody of the minor son to the petitioner (‘father’) and the child’s repatriation to his habitual place of residence- Germany, the Division Bench of Alok Aradhe and Vijaykumar A. Patil, JJ., pointed out that the principle of comity of courts is salutary in nature, yet it cannot override the consideration of best interest and welfare of the child. The principle must yield to paramount consideration i.e., interest and welfare of the child, which must be examined in the facts of each case. The Court further held that the remedy of writ of habeas corpus cannot be used for enforcement of an ex-parte order passed by the German Court, which was not in existence at the time when the son left Germany. Read more..

[Sankar Viswanathan v. State of Karnataka, 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 9]

Contents of Azan/Adhan does not infringe fundamental rights of other faith; Karnataka High Court directs State to ensure loudspeaker only in permissible decibel in the morning

A Division Bench of Alok Aradhe CJ., and S. Viswajith Shetty, J., held that azan or the contents of azan does not violate fundamental rights of petitioner of any person from a different faith. The use of loudspeakers, however, must be ensured to be within permissible limits from 10pm to 6 am in accordance with law. Read more..

[Chandrashekar R v. State of Karnataka, 2022 SCC OnLine Kar 1482]

Whether Head cooks and cooks employed under Mid-Day Meal Scheme covered under Minimum Wages Act, 1948? Karnataka High Court analyses

In a case filed by a social activist seeking direction to the State to provide minimum wages to the women workers employed under the mid-day meal scheme and to provide other benefits like Maternity Leave and other Leaves including medical benefits and insurance benefits, a Division Bench of Alok Aradhe ACJ and S. Vishwajith Shetty J. held that no writ of mandamus can be issued to the respondent-State to provide minimum wages to the Head Cooks and Cooks employed under the scheme as the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 apply to the jobs which have been mentioned in the Schedule appended to it which is not the case in light of the present facts. It also made clear that other benefits sought have already been extended by the State. Read more..

[Nowhera Shaik v. State of Karnataka, 2022 SCC OnLine Kar 1479]

Able-bodied person having the ability to earn is not entitled to seek permanent alimony from wife; Karnataka High Court dismisses appeal

The Division Bench of Alok Aradhe and J.M. Khazi, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed by a husband seeking permanent alimony from his divorced wife as she is employed as an Assistant Manager in a Co-operative Society. The Court held that the husband, being an able-bodied person, has the ability to earn and the salary of the wife must go in taking care of the son born out of wedlock and thus, is not entitled to seek permanent alimony from his divorced wife. Read more..

[T Sadananda Pai v. Sujatha S Pai, 2022 SCC OnLine Kar 1194]

Whether GST exemption can be claimed for leasing out residential premises as hostel to students and working professionals? Karnataka High Court answers

A petition was filed raising the question, whether the service provided by the petitioner i.e., leasing of residential premises as hostel to students and working professionals is covered under Entry 13 of Notification No. 9/2017 namely ‘service by way of renting of residential dwelling for use as residence’ issued under Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Division Bench of Alok Aradhe and M.I. Arun, JJ., addressing the issue of whether GST exemption can be claimed for leasing of residential premises as a hostel to students and working professionals held that the benefit of exemption notification cannot be denied to the petitioner on the ground that the lessee is not using the premises. Similarly, the finding recorded by AAAR Karnataka that the hostel accommodation is more akin to ‘sociable accommodation’ is unintelligible and is not relevant for the purposes of determining the eligibility of the petitioner to claim the benefit under the exemption notification. Read more..

[Taghar Vasudeva Ambrish v. Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Karnataka, 2022 SCC OnLine Kar 88]

[MV Act] Karnataka High Court | Evidence is examined on the touchstone of ‘preponderance of probabilities’, Standard of proof of accident beyond reasonable doubt to not apply

Two appeals were filed one by the claimant’s seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, and the other by the Karnataka State Transport Corporation under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 09-08-2017 passed by the Tribunal wherein the claimants were awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,15,27,982/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum to be paid by the KSRTC. A Division Bench of Alok Aradhe and Nataraj Rangaswamy, JJ., disposed of the appeal after modifying the compensation. Read more..

[Gowri S. Patil v. Divisional Controller, 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 447]

Karnataka High Court | Deductions falling under S. 10-B of Income Tax Act cannot be computed without setting off brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation

A Division Bench of Alok Aradhe and H.T. Narendra Prasad, JJ. set aside the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in favour of the assessee. The present appeal was filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) wherein an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was challenged. held that the decision of the Tribunal in the said matter was incorrect. Therefore, the above-mentioned question was answered in favour of the assessee. Read more..

[Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mind Tree Consulting Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 1328]

Jammu and Kashmir High Court dismisses PIL seeking quashing of decision of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Board charging money for special Aarti by devotees

A PIL was filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of order, dated 11.03.2008 as well as 31.05.2008 by which, in the 43rd Board Meeting of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Board (for short ‘the Shrine Board’), the decision has been taken to charge a sum of Rs. 16,000 for Aarti for one adult and on certain auspicious occasions which have been mentioned therein, a sum of Rs. 21,000/- is sought to be charged for performing Shradha Vishesh Pooja Darshan, as well as a sum of Rs. 1,000/- for participating in the Attaka Aarti performed at the temple of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi, respectively. A division bench of Alok Aradhe and Sanjeev Kumar, JJ., dismissed the PIL as the writ petition does not disclose any element of public interest or does it even raise an issue where the public in general is involved.

The Court noted “Darshan is open to every visitor who visits the temple of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi. Only provision for payment has been made at the time of Arti in Sanctum Sanctorum only to the extent of 30 percent in respect of Attaka Arti. The Shrine Board in its 43rd Board Meeting noticed that there were many people who wanted to attend the Arti and noticed that in several instances, they even tried to influence the staff of the Shrine Board in an undue manner to ensure their entry in the Sanctum Sanctorum at the time of entry. Therefore, it was decided that the hurdle price marginally in routine for A, B, C and D categories be prescribed. The aforesaid decision, in our considered opinion, is a well-informed decision and in the larger public interest for the benefit of the pilgrims, taken by the Shrine Board with which we do not find any ground to interfere. Therefore, there is no element of public interest involved in the writ petition.”

[Sumit Nayyar v Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board, 2017 SCC OnLine J&K 969]

Jammu and Kashmir High Court| Application seeking condonation of delay and main proceeding cannot be clubbed together along with adduced evidence under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC

A petition was filed under Section 13 of the J&K Hindu Marriage seeking dissolution of marriage following which the respondent filed an application for transferring the proceeding to the Court of the Principal District Judge which was allowed and the parties had been directed to be present at the said Court on a said date. Later, the respondent had applied for extension of time in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree belatedly which was allowed by the trial court. Alok Aradhe, J., held that the trial court should have first decided the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and subsequently proceeded to deciding the application by recording the evidence separately.

The Court held that severe injustice had been done to the petitioner by clubbing both the proceedings and recording the evidence. The petitioner should have been allowed to lead evidence in the main proceeding, which was initiated by the respondent and hence, suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record. Read more..

[Harjeet Singh v. Taranjeet Kour, 2017 SCC OnLine J&K 746]

Mahdya Pradesh High Court | No prior notice required for withdrawal of powers if criminal charge is registered and arrest has been made against a Panchayat Karmi

An appeal was filed to examine that if a criminal case is registered against a Panchayat Karmi and he has been arrested in the said offence, whether he is still required to be served a show cause notice or an opportunity of hearing before withdrawing the powers of Secretary. A Full Bench of A M Khanwilkar, CJ., S K Gangele and Alok Aradhe, JJ., held that no prior notice or opportunity of hearing before suspension of the Gram Panchayat Secretary or for that matter withdrawal (de-notified) of such charge given to the Panchayat Karmi, is required to be given by the competent Authority to the concerned employee much less who is facing serious criminal case.

[Chandrapal Yadav v State of MP, 2016 SCC OnLine MP 1144]

Madhya Pradesh High Court | New Excise Policy is a valid policy not being in contravention with Rule 8(1) of M.P. Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996

A petition was filed seeking clarification on Whether in the language of Rule 8(1)(a) of the M.P. Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996 and Rule 9 of the M.P. Country Spirit Rules the Government has power to renew the licence or it has to invite applications for each and every shop, every year and Whether 2010-2011 Liquor Policy which relates to renewal is a valid policy and whether such policy is likely to create monopoly in favour of all such persons who are ready and willing to give 20% extra on the existing basic licence fee and licence fee and such persons are providing 80% of the revenue. A full bench of S R Alam, CJ., Arun Mishra and Alok Aradhe, JJ., held that under Rule 8(1)(a) of the M.P. Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996 and Rule 9 of the M.P. Country Spirit Rules, 1995, it is open to the State Government to renew the licence of existing licensee on such condition, which it may prescribe or invite applications for grant of licence, or deal with grant of licence in such other manner as it may determine. The Court further held that the new liquor policy which provides for renewal of existing licence with further condition that renewal will take place only when the said renewal will generate more than 80% of the estimated revenue for the year 2010-2011 at the district level is a valid policy and does not create any monopoly.

The Court noted that The entire policy is aimed at generation of more revenue in lieu of parting with the privilege to deal in the business of liquor. The new policy cannot be said to be arbitrary and irrational. The new policy also does not contravene either the provisions of the Constitution or any statutory provisions, since, elimination and exclusion from business is held to be inherent in liquor business. Therefore, the policy cannot be assailed on the grounds that it is discriminatory.

[Chingalal Yadav v State of MP, 2010 SCC OnLine MP 110]