Know Thy Judge| Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya: 47th Chief Justice of Bombay High Court

Early Life and Education

Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya was born on 16-06-1965 to R.A Upadhyaya, a renowned advocate.¹ Justice Upadhyaya completed his schooling from Colvin Taluqdars’ College² and graduated in Law from Lucknow University in 1991 and enrolled as an Advocate on 11-05-1991.³

Career Trajectory

As an Advocate

After enrolling as an Advocate, Justice Upadhyaya initially practiced advocacy with his father and later he joined the Chambers of Senior Advocate Mohd. Arif Khan in 1991. He subsequently joined the Chambers of Senior Advocate S.K. Kalia in 1997.⁴ He mainly practiced at Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in the areas of Civil and Constitutional laws. In 2007, he was appointed as Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh and continued in this position till his elevation as Additional Judge in 2011.⁵

Did You Know: Justice Upadhyay also worked as a freelance Journalist before joining the legal profession.⁶

As a Judge

Justice Upadhyaya was elevated as Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 21-11-2011.⁷ Later, he took oath as a Permanent Judge on 06-08-2013 and was designated as Senior Judge of High Court Lucknow Bench. The Supreme Court Collegium had recommended appointment of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya as the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court as he was the senior puisne Judge of the Allahabad High Court.⁸ The President had appointed Justice Upadhyaya as Chief Justice of Bombay High Court on 24-07-2023. He was sworn in as Chief Justice of Bombay High Court on 29-07-2023. Justice Upadhyaya on his farewell from Allahabad High Court stated that “my father, taught me that a lawyer has to live like a hermit and work like a horse.”⁹

Did You Know: Justice DK Upadhyaya was also appointed as Chairperson of Supervisory Committee of Judicial Training and Research Institute, Lucknow.¹⁰

Notable Judgments by Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya

HIV positive patients can neither be denied employment nor promotion in employment

In X v. Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, 2023 SCC OnLine All 429, while hearing a special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 against the judgment and order passed by Single Judge, wherein the Court did not find any illegality or perversity or violation of Constitutional rights in cancellation of the promotion order of the appellant on the ground that he is Human Immunodeficiency Virus (‘HIV’) positive, the division bench of Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ. held that a person, who is otherwise fit, could not be denied employment or promotion only on the ground that he or she is HIV positive, and this would be a violation of Articles 14, 16, 21 of the Constitution of India. Read More

No reservation for OBC should be provided in Urban Local Body elections

In Vaibhav Pandey v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine All 913, the division bench of Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya* and Saurabh Lavania, JJ. quashed the notification dated 05-12-2022 issued by the State Government regarding the reservations of seats/offices of the Chairpersons of different Municipal Bodies to be reserved for the Scheduled Castes (‘SC’), the Scheduled Tribes (‘ST’), backward classes and women. It was also directed that until the triple test is completed in all respects by the State Government, no reservation for other backward class of citizens shall be provided in Urban Local Body elections. Further, it directed the State Government/State Election Commission to notify the elections immediately and said that while notifying the elections, the seats of Chairpersons, except those to be reserved for SC and ST, shall be notified as for general/open category. Read More

Chairman and Vice-Chairman of Central Administrative Tribunal entitled to same retirement benefits as available to High Court Judges

In Dinesh Chandra Verma v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine All 432, a writ petition was filed by a retired Vice Chairman of Central Administrative Tribunal, challenging the order dated 26-12-2019, passed by the State Government whereby his representation claiming the benefit of domestic help allowance has been rejected, the division bench of Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ. has held that the petitioner is entitled to Domestic Help Allowance and directed the State to make available the same to the petitioner with effect from 01.03.2008 along with periodical revision, if any, within a month from the date of this order, along with the arrears of the said allowance within the next two months. However, he was not entitled to the payment of interest. Read More

Can a married daughter apply for compassionate appointment in State Government Jobs?

In Neelam Devi v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine All 415, an order passed by the General Manager (Administration) of the Bank, wherein the claim of a daughter for compassionate appointment was rejected as only unmarried daughter is eligible for being offered compassionate appointment, division bench of Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ. struck down the word “unmarried” occurring in the note appended to Regulation 104 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees’ Service Regulations, 1975 (‘Regulations 1975’) and also, quashed the impugned order. Read More

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be instituted through power of attorney holder

In Syed Wasif Husain Rizvi v. Hasan Raza Khan, 2016 SCC OnLine All 175, the three Judge Bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud, C.J., Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Rajan Roy, JJ., answered the question that whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be filed by a power of attorney holder, in affirmative. Read More

Possibility of altercation between neighbours cannot be equated with affecting ‘peace and tranquility of the area’

In Rampal Gautam v. State of U.P., 2018 SCC OnLine All 159, while hearing a parole application of a murder convict, the Division Bench comprising of Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Dinesh Kumar Singh, JJ., observed that the amplitude of possibility of peace and tranquility of the area being affected cannot be equated with the possibility of some altercation between two neighbours. Read More

Permanent Judges and Additional Judges equally duty bound to perform judicial work

In Mata Prasad Tiwari v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine All 377, an application was moved for seeking review of the judgment and order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of the Court, dismissing an appeal, the division bench of Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Subhash Vidyarthi* JJ. while setting aside the review application, said that as far as the judicial powers and duties of the judges are concerned, there is no difference between the Judges appointed under Article 217 of the Constitution of India and the Judges appointed under Article 224. In the event a Judge appointed under Article 224 does not decide any case because he has been appointed under that Article, he would be failing in the performance of his Constitutional duties, and he will be disrespecting his oath. Read More

21 yr old contempt case against lawyers involving strike, boycott, destruction and throwing away of Court records closed

In State of U.P. v. Rama Kant Pandey, 2021 SCC OnLine All 918, the Division Bench of Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Narendra Kumar Johari, JJ., while dealing with criminal contempt proceedings instituted on the strength of a letter written by the then District Judge, Gonda whereby a reference was made to initiate contempt proceedings against 12 lawyers, stated that, Judiciary neither has power of sword nor that of purse, it stands tall only by virtue of trust and faith of people. Read More

Right to Education| Free textbooks and uniform only to Students who are admitted from weaker and disadvantaged sections of society

In U.P. Sr.Basic Shiksha Mahasha U.P.Officer v. State of U.P.¹¹, while hearing a Public Interest Litigation petition for providing free textbooks and uniforms to all the students studying in class 6 to 8 in non-aided recognized junior high schools who are recognized by the Basic Education Board, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh, the Division Bench of Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Subhash Vidyarthi, JJ., stated that the Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011, casts a duty upon the State and local authority to provide free text books and uniform each year only to the students who are admitted in terms of the provisions of Section 12(1)(c) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, i.e., the students admitted up to 25 percent of the total strength from amongst weaker and disadvantaged sections of the society.