Know Thy Judge | Justice Chandra Dhari Singh: A symbol of Perseverance and Legal Brilliance

“The ardent task of judging is one ridden with thorns and thistles, or as quoted in the Upanishads as — क्षुरस्य धारा निशिता दुरत्यया. What keeps a Judge moving is the passion for and the noble endeavour of serving justice”.

-Justice Chandra Dhari Singh¹

Early Life and Education

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was born on 13-07-1969. He hails from Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh.² He completed his Law from Delhi University in the year 1993. He completed his LL.M. from National Law University Jodhpur through distance education³.

Advocacy

“Every individual has his fair share of struggles in life. It is these challenges that are the beauty of life — these help to hone your skills and manifest your innate potential”.⁴

After completing his education, Justice C.D. Singh enrolled as an advocate on 20-07-1994. He cracked the exam for Advocate-on Record in 2001 and practised in the Supreme Court of India. He dealt in Original Side, Civil and Criminal matters in High Courts, Trial Courts and before Tribunals and Commissions. He practiced various areas of law, such as Service Law, Labour Laws, Electricity Laws, Excise and Custom, Negotiable Instrument Act, Arbitration, Educational and other Corporate and Industry related matters.

Later, he was appointed as Additional Advocate General for the State of Chhattisgarh, Standing Counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Jharkhand. He was also the Senior Panel Counsel for Union of India, University of Lucknow and Steel Authority of India Ltd. Justice CD Singh was also representative of Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Hindustan Copper Ltd., Indian Tourism Development Corporation, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, Airport Authority, Coal India Ltd. in the Supreme Court.⁵

Did You Know: Justice C.D. Singh was elected as Joint Secretary of the Supreme Court Bar Association and Secretary of the Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association.⁶

From Advocacy to Judgeship

Justice C.D. Singh was appointed as an Additional Judge at the Allahabad High Court on 22-09-2017, and later took oath as Permanent Judge on 06-09-2019.⁷ He was later transferred to Delhi High Court on 11-10-2021.

Notable Judgments

“What keeps a Judge moving is the passion for and the noble endeavour of serving justice”.⁸

Delhi High Court

[Central Council of Homeopathy v. Vijay Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3798]

In a challenge to order passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’), Chandra Dhari Singh, J. upheld the order while holding that the petitioner was within the ambit of “Industry” as defined in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘Act’) and that he had acted in contravention of Section 33 of the Act. Read more

[Rameshwar Jha v. The Principal Richmond Global School, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4438]

In a batch of 39 petitions seeking the admission of students under the Economically Weaker Section category (“EWS category”) under Section 2(e) of Right to Education Act (RTE Act) in the respondent schools at the elementary level, Chandra Dhari Singh, J., issued a list of directions providing relief to the EWS students and their families. The Court directed all the schools to ensure that no student, belonging to “Weaker Sections” as defined in the RTE Act and recommended by the Department of Education (DoE) for being admitted in an Academic Session, shall be denied admission or treated with conduct that is unwelcoming of them on any pretext whatsoever including that of suspicion of credentials. Read more

[Department of Transport v. Star Bus Services (P) Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2890]

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. set aside the arbitral award passed by the Sole Arbitrator and opined that inordinate, and unexplained delay of more than 1.5 years in rendering the award made it amenable to challenge under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’), that is, being in conflict with the public policy of India. Read more

[Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 819]

In a case wherein a petition was filed for restraining respondent from invocation/encashment of the Petitioner’s Bank Guarantee under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”), a Single Judge Bench of Chandra Dhari Singh, J. disposed of the petition and restrained the respondent from invoking/encashing the bank guarantee as the facts and circumstances of the present case, demonstrated special equities in favour of the petitioner. It was held that Courts cannot interfere with the enforcement of a bank guarantee except in cases where fraud or special equity is prima facie made out so as to prevent irretrievable injustice. Read more

[Siddharth Rao v. GNCTD, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4606]

In a petition filed by the then Secretary, Delhi Legislative Assembly under Article 226 of Constitution seeking quashing the impugned order passed by State thereby terminating him from his service and holding all his appointments in Delhi Legislative Assembly, illegal and thereby relieving the petitioner from the post of secretary, Delhi Legislative Assembly, Chandra Dhari Singh, J., held that the appointment of the petitioner is in the teeth of law and cannot be saved and thus, cannot be termed as illegal. Read more

“If the very appointment to the post is vitiated by fraud, forgery or illegality, it would necessarily follow that no constitutional rights under Article 311 can possibly be invoked. In such a situation, the question is whether the person concerned is at all a civil servant of the Union and if he is not validly so, then the issue remains outside the purview of Article 311. If the very entry door into the civil service of the Union is barred, the cloak of protection under Article 311 cannot be available.”

[Mukesh Kumar Jha v. Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2814]

Chandra Dhari Singh, J., opined that the test laid down by the Supreme Court with regard to inclusion of an entity as a State was duly met in the case of respondent, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, where it was apparent that the Ministry of Defence, i.e., the Government had control over the functioning, finance, and administration of respondent, which made the same an instrumentality of State under Article 12 and thus, amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. Read more

[Mohammad Hakim v. DDA, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1705]

In petitions seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the letter dated 3-7-2020 rejecting the claim of petitioners for allotment of the house in lieu of petitioner’s erstwhile occupation/possession/residence at the first floor of the Jhuggis of petitioner in Kathputli Colony Delhi. Chandra Dhari Singh, J., held that the requirement of a Ration Card as mandatory document to be produced before respondent as a proof to claim that first floor of the Jhuggi was a separate dwelling unit was arbitrary and illegal. The Court said that ration Card cannot be considered as address proof, it is issued exclusively for obtaining essential commodities from shops. Read more

[Amit Kumar v. Bharati College, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1011]

In a petition for payment of complete salary along with the arrears and increments to the petitioner in accordance with the law and to direct the respondent to refund the deducted amount vide the impugned order, Chandra Dhari Singh, J., set aside the order and audit memo, preventing the recovery of the overpaid amount due to the absence of Vice-Chancellor approval for suspension at the time of issuance. Thus, while the petitioner was not entitled to requested increments, the petition was partly allowed regarding the non-recovery of the overpaid salary. Read more

Did You Know: Justice CD Singh had joined Justice Sanjay Karol’s chamber after enrolling as an advocate with Bar Council of Delhi.⁹

[Bhavneet Singh v. Ircon International Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 8566]

Chandra Dhari Singh, J., after considering the medical conditions and the ongoing treatment of petitioner, opined that petitioner should not be transferred to any other State, except Delhi, as the same might create hindrances to his treatment. The Court set aside the impugned transfer and relieving orders and held that Respondent 1, IRCON International Ltd. acted in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution since it ignored the special needs of petitioner and posted him to a far-off place. The Court opined that the State by various enactments and Office Memorandums had the objective of ensuring that the transfers and job postings of the persons with disabilities should be in such a way that they should be given the choice to be posted at their preferred place of posting and might even be exempted from rotational transfers as mandated for other employees. Read more

[Paramedical Technical Staff Welfare Association of MCD v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 8372]

Chandra Dhari Singh, J., held that the policy regarding the marking of attendance on the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (‘MCD’) SMART Application could not be termed as arbitrary or unfair mainly for two reasons, firstly, purchasing/possession of a smart phone was not a compulsion for all employees as the employees had alternate methods to mark their attendance and could opt to mark themselves present either through the supervisor or any other employee’s phone. Secondly, the issue of privacy and security did not arise as the application was not developed by an unknown source, rather by a body under the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology where the said body had already done due diligence with regards to the potential threats of security breach.

Did You Know: During his practice as an AOR in the Supreme Court, Justice C.D. Singh opened his office in Bengali market with Justice S. Chandrasekhar, who was recently transferred¹⁰ to Rajasthan High Court.¹¹

[Anjali Vaid v Adarsh World School, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7423]

A batch of petitions were filed seeking benefits of the 6th Central Pay Commission (6th CPC) along with the arrears, benefits under the 7th Central Pay Commission (7thCPC) along with the arrears, and retirement benefits such as gratuity, leave encashment, Dearness Allowance (DA), Medical Allowance (MA), House Rent Allowances (HRA), Travel Allowances (TA), etc., along with the interests and costs which are due as per the guidelines of 7th CPC. Chandra Dhari Singh, J., held that the schools are liable to pay for all the dues of its employees, irrespective of the fact whether the said dues pertain to three year or are prior to that and directs Government of NCT of Delhi to constitute a ‘High-Powered Committee‘ to supervise the implementation of recommendations and guidelines prescribed in the 6th and 7th Central Pay Commission with regards to the salaries and arrears thereto, retirement/terminal benefits, arrears of allowances etc. and to draw up a plan of action which may help in achieving results at the ground level. Read more

[Rehmat Fatima v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6307]

In a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution aggrieved by denial of maternity benefits and termination of petitioner who was working as contractual employee, Chandra Dhari Singh, J. opined that the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) created a fiction in the petitioner’s favour to be treated as the employee of Respondent 3 for giving her maternity benefits. The Court further opined that as per Section 5 of the Act, the petitioner was entitled to the maternity benefits, despite the fact that her contract ended during her pregnancy and upon fulfilment of the conditions specified in Section 5(2) of the Act, the maternity benefits extended beyond the contractual period of the petitioner’s employment. Read more

Did You Know: Justice CD Singh represented Supreme Court of India and Madhya Pradesh High Court and Chhattisgarh High Court, before the Supreme Court in several notable cases.¹²

[National Highways Authority of India v. Ashoka Buildcon Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5658]

In a petition by the National Highways Authority of India (‘NHAI’) under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) to quash and set aside the arbitral award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal (‘Tribunal’), Chandra Dhari Singh, J. opined that a perusal of the impugned Award made it evident that there was no patent illegality or error apparent on the face of the record and the Arbitrator had passed the impugned Award after considering all the relevant material placed before it during the arbitral proceedings. Hence, the Court upheld the Award of Rs. 36 Crores to be paid by NHAI to Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. Read more

[Ruchir Agrawal v. Public Enterprises Selection Board, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5252]

In a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to seek deletion of the preference clause prescribed in eligibility section of the published advertisement, Chandra Dhari Singh, J. held that Public Enterprises Selection Board had not violated the fundamental right of the petitioner by creating separate classification for better qualification, and accordingly, dismissed the petition. The Court held that creating separate classification in appointments for better qualification will not violate fundamental rights of a person. Read more

[Vineeta Daulet Singh v. Bikkrama Daulet Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5333]

In a case wherein the petition was filed under Sections 12 and 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (‘Contempt Act’) seeking the relief to punish the respondent for the wilful disobedience of the Order dated 29-11-2021 passed by this Court, Chandra Dhari Singh, J., opined that merely not providing consent for moving the Second Motion petition for divorce in itself would not amount to contempt of the Court’s order or direction, since the action/inaction on the part of the respondent could not be considered to fall under the “wilful disobedience” which was an indispensable requirement for making out a case for civil contempt. Read more

[Saiyam Mishra v Air India Limited, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4904]

A petition was filed seeking to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to direct Air India Limited (Respondent 1) to grant the petitioners w.e.f. 01-07-2012 the same basic pay as calculated for the Service Engineers (Grade T7/E3) employed in the Ground Service Department pursuant to the Revised Basic Pay implemented pursuant to the Justice Dharmadhikari Committee Report with all consequential reliefs and interest at commercial rate. Chandra Dhari Singh, J., held that Air India is no longer “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and a writ petition under Article 226 can only be instituted against a public authority. Read more

[Pankaj Bansal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3590]

In a case wherein the applicant had approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail since the applicant apprehended his arrest in connection with a Enforcement Case Information Report (‘ECIR) registered by the Enforcement Directorate (‘ED’) under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA Act’), a Single Judge Bench of Chandra Dhari Singh, J. noted that the applicant had not yet been implicated in any Scheduled Offences as provided under the PMLA and in fact, the ECIR did not even find mention of the name of the applicant or any of the M3M Companies. Read more

[Akbar Travel and Tours v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3565]

A Single Judge bench of Chandra Dhari Singh, J. opined that the Court was primarily concerned with the pilgrims who intended to travel on Haj Pilgrimage and had paid in advance to the petitioners for the same as travelling to Haj was not merely a holiday but was a medium of practicing their religion and faith, which was a fundamental right. Thus, this Court, being the protector of the rights of the pilgrims, should take the necessary steps in this regard. Read more

[Gautam Gambhir v. Punjab Kesari, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2889]

In a case wherein a suit for mandatory injunction, damages and costs was filed by Gautam Gambhir against Punjab Kesari for immediate removal of per-se defamatory publications as well as to recover adequate suitable damages from the defendants for publishing/circulating utterly incorrect and defamatory allegations qua the plaintiff, Chandra Dhari Singh, J. opined that many of the articles were indicative of wilful campaign launched by the defendants to lower the reputation of standing of the plaintiff in the eyes of his constituents, supporters and the public at large and this did not befit a newspaper of the repute and stature of the defendants to indulge in such a conduct. Read more

[Jayant Kumar Ghosh Outdoor Catering (P) Ltd v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2420]

In an appeal under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Arbitration Act’), Chandra Dhari Singh, J. contemplated the scope of Section 37 of Arbitration Actalong with applicability of lis pendens and upheld the impugned order of the Arbitrator in favour of State, while opining that all the relevant material was taken into consideration. Read more

[Taru Puri v. Anmol Sheikh alias Malaika, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1272]

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. held that in camera proceedings can be held under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 if warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case. Read more

[Flowmore Limited v. Skipper Limited, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 548]

In a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the petitioner, a Public Limited Company, primarily dealing in the area of large application pumps that has diversified into the power sector seeking to set aside the arbitral award passed by the Sole Arbitrator on the grounds of the arbitral award being ex-facie erroneous and suffering from patent illegality, Chandra Dhari Singh, J., held that on the application of the rule of contra proferentem, the Purchase Order was fittingly interpreted by the Sole Arbitrator, leaving no scope for the interference of this Court on the Award. Read more

[Mahendra Kumar Verma v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 75]

In a petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the Petitioner for the treatment of his son for brain tumor in accordance with the relevant rules applicable to the Petitioner being employed in the Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi as a Reader in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate and covered by the Central Government (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 and the orders passed there under from time to time, Chandra Dhari Singh, J., directed the respondent- State to fully reimburse the Petitioner to the extent of bills raised by both the Hospitals, and to release the amount retained in the FDR, along with interest accrued from time to time, deducted from the salary or allowances of the petitioner as soon as possible, but positively within a period of four weeks from the date of the judgment. Read more

[Videocon Industries Limited v Ram Raj Bhandari, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4579]

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. held that Courts are duty bound to lean towards an interpretation which uphold jurisdiction of a Civil Court in case of suspicion. Read more

[Khosla Medical Institute v. Delhi Development Authority, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4199]

In a regular first appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI of the Civil Procedure Code seeking to set aside the order and judgment dated 14-11-2011 passed by District Judge-cum ASJ — Incharge (West) / ARCT Delhi, Chandra Dhari Singh, J., allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment passed by the Trial Court, canceling /terminating the Lease Deed of the appellant Institute. The Court opined that cancellation of lease deed of Institution running a charitable hospital on public land a travesty of justice. Read more

[Natural Father Ravinder Singh v. Govt of NCT of Delhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2940]

In a case filed by a father of a student (‘petitioner’) challenging the validity and constitutionality of a Circular of the Government of NCT of Delhi/respondent 1 dated 27-07-2022 whereby the respondent 1 has mandated minimum 71% marks for admission in Science Stream in Class XI in respondent 2 School for the academic year 2022-23, Chandra Dhari Singh, J. upheld the validity of the circular stating that every school, including schools under State Government , has the liberty and autonomy to maintain the standards it has set out for itself and thus, laying down an eligibility criterion for admission in different classes cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. Read more

[Devasri Bali v. Central Board Secondary Education, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2602]

In a case where a student was unable to take admission in BITS Pilani due to less percentage than the one required to meet eligibility for admission. This was due to CBSE modifying the weightage formula without formal announcement aggrieving the petitioner and many other students. Chandra Dhari Singh, J. expressed his disappointment towards the glaring lapses and lackadaisical approach adopted by the CBSE. The Court granted relief to the student seeking admission in BITS Pilani after CBSE violated ‘legitimate expectation of the students’. Read more

[V.K Verma v. CBI, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1192]

Expressing that, the revisional jurisdiction is not meant to test the waters of what might happen in the trial, Chandra Dhari Singh, J., held that at the stage of framing of charge, the judge is merely required to overview the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Read more

[Pradeep Kumar Sharma v. Deepika Sharma, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1035]

While addressing a matter with regard to a wife’s right to maintenance Chandra Dhari Singh, J., expressed that, only continuous and repeated acts of adultery and/or cohabitation in adultery would attract the rigours of the provision under Section 125(4) CrPC. Read more

Allahabad High Court

[Bhole Sharma v. State, 2017 SCC OnLine All 4768]

In an appeal against Trial Court’s decision convicting the accused for offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v), S.C. & S.T. Act for raping the minor girl of seven years old, the Division Bench of Narayan Shukla and Chandra Dhari Singh, JJ. partly allowed the appeal and the conviction of the accused under Section 3(2)(v) of S.C. & S.T. Act was set aside. The conviction under Section 376 of the IPC was maintained.

[Ravish Kumar Bharti v. State of U.P., 2018 SCC OnLine All 6534]

In an intra-Court appeal against a decision of the Single Judge, whereby the appellant’s writ petition was dismissed on the ground that correct name was not mentioned in the caste certificate, therefore, no exception could be taken if the appellant was denied the status of scheduled caste, the Division Bench of Govind Mathur and Chandra Dhari Singh, JJ. allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned decision, holding that necessitating upon a certificate would be clearly arbitrary and it has no rational objective sought to be achieved.

“Social and economic justice is a right enshrined for protection of society. The right in social and economic justice envisaged in the preamble and elongated in the fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of the Constitution of India.”

[Raj Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., 2018 SCC OnLine All 6110]

In a criminal appeal against conviction of the accused persons under Sections 302/149, 307/149 and 148 of the IPC, and sentence for life imprisonment, ten years simple imprisonment and three years simple imprisonment respectively, the Division Bench of Naheed Ara Moonis and Chandra Dhari Singh, JJ. dismissed the criminal appeal and upheld the impugned decision. The Court reiterated that the evidence of the witnesses must be read as a whole and the cases are to be considered in totality of the circumstances and while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be taken into consideration as they cannot form grounds to reject the evidence as a whole.

The said decision was affirmed in Karan Singh v. State of U.P., (2022) 6 SCC 52

[U.P. SRTC v. Prayag Narain Dubey, 2018 SCC OnLine All 6131]

In an appeal against a decision of the Single Judge, whereby the respondent/ conductor in the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation was held to be in continuous service and entitled for entire arrears including the retiral benefits, the Division Bench of Govind Mathur and Chandra Dhari Singh, JJ. dismissed the appeal and affirmed the impugned decision.

“When an employee is not allowed to work due to fault of employer/authorities, such person is entitled for salary for the period he has not been allowed to work. The principle of “no work no pay” will not apply to such a case.”

[Bhoori v. State of U.P., 2018 SCC OnLine All 5398]

In an application under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate’s order, whereby application under Section 156(3) of CrPC moved by the applicant was treated as complaint case, Chandra Dhari Singh, J. dismissed the appeal, holding that the impugned order was passed after considering each and every aspect of the matter.

[Dinesh Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P., 2018 SCC OnLine All 5533]

In an intra-court appeal against a Single Judge’s decision, wherein the appellant’s petition was dismissed and his order of dismissal from service of post of Junior Clerk was upheld, the Division Bench of Govind Mathur and Chandra Dhari Singh, JJ. upon noting that an opportunity to adduce evidence and cross-examine the witnesses was not provided to the appellant, allowed the appeal and quashed the consequential impugned orders.

[Rameshwar v. State, 2018 SCC OnLine All 5851]

In a batch of appeals against a decision of the Trial Court whereby the appellants, were convicted under Section 302/34 of the IPC and were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, the Division Bench of Shwani Kumar Mishra and Chandra Dhari Singh, JJ. said that the prosecution’s case suffered from infirmities and lacunas, therefore, granting the benefit of reasonable doubt to the appellants, both the appeals were allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court was set aside.

“While testing the evidence of the eye witness account, the court must scrutinize the contradictions and the omissions in material particulars that go to the root of the case, which materially affects the trial or core of the prosecution case and render the testimony of the witnesses liable to be discarded.”

To know more about Justice CD Singh’s experiences and his journey, read: “The ardent task of judging is one ridden with thorns and thistles” says Justice CD Singh