Know Thy Judge | Justice Arun Bhansali, the 51st Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court

“A son continues to be a son both before and after marriage. A daughter continues to be a daughter. This relationship is not affected either in fact or in law upon marriage”¹.

-Justice Arun Bhansali

Born on 15-10-1967, Justice Arun Bhansali has carved a distinguished path in the Indian judiciary, marked by his exceptional legal acumen and unwavering commitment to justice. His journey from a budding lawyer to the esteemed Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court is a testament to his dedication and prowess in the field of law.

Legal Career

After enrolling as a lawyer on 08-07-1989,² Justice Bhansali embarked on a remarkable career trajectory, honing his skills and expertise across various legal domains. Prior to donning the robes of a Judge, he amassed invaluable experience at the Rajasthan High Court in Jodhpur, where he delved into diverse legal spheres, ranging from taxes and corporate law to civil and constitutional matters.³ Moreover, Justice Bhansali’s legal expertise was sought after by numerous corporate entities and governmental bodies. He represented many corporate clients in courts, company law boards, tribunals, and forums, offering counsel on many legal matters encompassing property laws, banking regulations, arbitration, consumer protection, and more.

His role as a retainer for esteemed organizations such as the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., Companies & Trusts related to erstwhile Royal Family of Udaipur (1996-2013), and Standing Counsel for Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (2004-2013), Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department (2012-2013), HPCL – Mittal Energy Ltd and being Panel Lawyer for Bank of Baroda, Canara Bank, Central Bank of India and Vijaya Bank, underscores the trust reposed in his legal acumen and advocacy skills.⁴

Furthermore, Justice Bhansali’s involvement in public service, as evidenced by his tenure as a standing counsel for government departments and agencies, reflects his commitment to serving the broader interests of society.

Judicial Career

Judge, Rajasthan High Court [2013- 2024]

Justice Arun Bhansali’s elevation as a Judge of the Rajasthan High Court on 08-01-2013, marked a significant milestone in his professional journey. Throughout his tenure as a High Court Judge, spanning almost eleven years, Justice Arun Bhansali left an indelible mark on the Indian judicial landscape.

*Did you Know? Justice Arun Bhansali authored over 1230 reported cases during his 11-year tenure as Judge of Rajasthan High Court, which stands as a testament to his meticulous approach to dispensing justice and his deep understanding of legal intricacies.⁵

Justice Bhansali’s contributions extend beyond the courtroom. He actively participated in various advisory and consultative bodies, including the National Legal Service Authority (NALSA) and the National Court Management System Committee (NCMSC), where his insights played a pivotal role in shaping legal policies and frameworks.⁶

Chief Justice, Allahabad High Court

On 27-12-2023, Supreme Court Collegium comprising of Dr Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, the Chief Justice of India, Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice B.R. Gavai, passed a Resolution recommending Justice Arun Bhansali’s name as the next Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court.⁷ Justice Bhansali’s illustrious career reached another pinnacle on 02-02-2024 with his appointment as the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court.⁸ He took oath, administered by Governor of the State of Uttar Pradesh, Anandiben Patel, as the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court on 05-02-2024.⁹

Notable Judgements

In XYZ v. State of Rajasthan,¹⁰ a habeas corpus petition filed by the petitioner seeking the production of her infant daughter from her father, a division bench comprising of Arun Bhansali and Rajendra Prakash Soni, JJ., provided the custody of a minor child to her teenage mother. The Court directed action against the former member of CWC (Child Welfare Committee) who “under the guise of social activity, apparently in conspiracy with maternal grandfather of the infant to espouse her personal interest, for the purpose of getting rid of the child, has misused her status as former member of CWC” and facilitated an illegal adoption.

In Om Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC OnLine Raj 928, an appeal against conviction for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- with default stipulation to undergo six months’ additional simple imprisonment, a division bench comprising of Arun Bhansali* and Rajendra Prakash Soni, JJ., after appreciation of evidence, oral as well as documentary, and the circumstances of the case and conduct of the accused in not offering any explanation for the homicidal death of her five months’ child, held the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC.

While allowing a petition challenging the cancellation of the petitioner’s candidature for the post of Teacher Grade III (Level I), in Sharmila Barma v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 SCC OnLine Raj 2592, a single-judge bench comprising of Arun Bhansali,* J., quashed the determination made by respondents and held that since Association of Indian Universities (‘AIU’) had issued equivalence certificate with regard to the qualification of the petitioner, the same made her eligible for the post.

In Priyanka Shrimali v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 SCC OnLine Raj 1479, a writ petition challenging the position of law prior to the amendment of Rule 2(c) of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996, which excluded the married daughter from the definition of ‘dependent’, for the purpose of compassionate appointment vide Notification dated 28-10-2021, a 3-Judge-Bench of Sandeep Mehta, Vijay Bishnoi and Arun Bhansali,* JJ., held that the provision of Rule 2(c) of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996, which exclude the married daughter from definition of dependent prior to its amendment vide notification dated 28.10.2021, is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India and as such, the word ‘unmarried’ from the definition of ‘dependent’, is struck down. Further, in Rule 5 of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 also the word unmarried daughters/adopted unmarried daughter, shall be read as daughters/adopted daughter.

“Marriage does not determine the continuance of the relationship of a child, whether a son or a daughter, with the parents. A son continues to be a son both before and after marriage. A daughter continues to be a daughter. This relationship is not affected either in fact or in law upon marriage. Marriage does not bring about a severance of the relationship between a father and mother and their son or between parents and their daughter. Our society is governed by constitutional principles. Marriage cannot be regarded as a justifiable ground to define and exclude from who constitutes a member of the family when the state has adopted a social welfare policy which is grounded on dependency.”

In Aaraj Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 SCC OnLine Raj 1164, a case related to an illegal termination of a Manager of Kotak Mahindra Bank being pending for relief and having no effective hearing owing to the post of Deputy Labour Commissioner being vacant, a single-judge bench comprising of Arun Bhansali,* J., instructed the State to appoint competent authority and the same was thereby appointed.

In Bhaniyana Construction v. State of Rajasthan, 2020 SCC OnLine Raj 1386, a single-judge bench comprising of Arun Bhansali,* J., rejected a stay application that was filed aggrieved by the order of the Director, Mines demanding penalty, revoking sanction and passing debarring order against the petitioner. The Court added that the petitioner was not vigilant enough to seek his remedy in relation to the grievance as raised in the writ petition.

While dismissing a writ petition by the petitioners for restraining the respondents to terminate their services that was on a contract basis for a very long time, in Om Prakash Vyas v. State of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 4884, a single-judge bench comprising of Arun Bhansali,* J., held that merely because the respondents issued a notice for inviting bids for shortlisting of HR agencies does not give any cause of action to the petitioner for this petition. Except for the challenge made on the notice, which is supported by Mohd. Abdul Kadir v. DGP, (2009) 6 SCC 611, the petitioner who is employed on contractual basis cannot claim regularisation as a matter of right through invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

While disposing of a petition challenging the order of rejection of her candidature for elementary school, in Premi Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 2068, a single-judge bench comprising of Arun Bhansali,* J., held that merely on account of widowhood a candidate cannot be granted benefits for appointment at Elementary Education.

While disposing of a writ petition filed by the petitioner requesting to make pay fixation of the petitioner equal to similarly situated teachers, a single-judge bench comprising of Arun Bhansali,* J., in Ganpat Singh Medawat v. State of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 1283, directed the State to consider representations of petitioners for providing equal pay to similar positioned teachers. The Court reiterated the direction of the Jaipur Bench,

“In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. However, in no case later than three months from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.”

In Rupendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 491, a single-judge bench comprising of Arun Bhansali,* J., allowed the writ petition regarding payment of minimum wages as prescribed for skilled workman under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and held that “the petitioners who are employed under Gramin Janta Jal Yojana as Pump Driver/Pump Operator shall be entitled for the wages as prescribed for skilled workman by the State of Rajasthan as per the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948.”

While allowing a writ petition filed to claim seniority based on the merit of the petitioners in the merit list based on common selection, in Prakash Chandra Ahari Bhil v. State of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 254, a single-judge bench comprising of Arun Bhansali,* J., held that seniority to be assigned as per the inter-se merit of the candidates in the merit list based on common selection. The Court directed the State-respondent to extend the benefit of pay fixation and seniority on notional basis to the petitioners from the date juniors to the petitioners had been accorded with reference to the same recruitment process of the year of 2012.

While dismissing a writ petition challenging an order passed by Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Tribunal, Jaipur which quashed the order of compulsory retirement passed by the petitioners holding it illegal and ordered for reinstatement of the respondent with all the consequential reliefs including salary and other benefits, in Chopasni Shiksha Samiti v. Gajendra Singh, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 430, a single-judge bench comprising of Arun Bhansali,* J., upheld the Tribunal’s order and stated that the order of compulsory retirement cannot be passed as shortcut to departmental enquiry. The Court opined “(…) during the intervening period as a temporary employee got engagement with some institution cannot be a reason for the petitioners to deny the payment of back salary and other benefits once it is found that their action was against the law and the order of compulsory retirement was passed only with an intention to ease out the respondent from employment during pendency of enquiry.”

In Rani Lamba v. State of Rajasthan, 2018 SCC OnLine Raj 1301, where the petitioner who was appointed in the category of “widow” as a grade three teacher was eventually transferred to a few other schools one after the other, challenged such transfers, a single-judge bench comprising of Arun Bhansali,* J., dismissed the writ petition on the basis of unreasonable and baseless grounds placed in regard to the grievance, and held that transfer order cannot be quashed on ground of being a ‘widow’.

* Judge who has penned the judgment.