Early Life and Career Trajectory1
Born on 11-01-1963, Justice Sandeep Mehta took oath as the Supreme Court Judge on 9-11-2023. He previously served as the Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court. The Supreme Court Collegium recommended appointment of Justice Sandeep Mehta, Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court, as the Supreme Court Judge on 6-11-2023 and soon, the same received clearance from the Central Government.
Justice Mehta enrolled with the Bar in 1986, joined as the member of Bar Council of Rajasthan in 2003 and remained one till his elevation to the Bench in 2011. He has practiced in Trial Courts, High Courts as well as the Supreme Court. Justice Mehta has also been the Vice-Chairman and Chairman of Bar Council of Rajasthan during 2004-05; 2009 and 2010 respectively. He has been Counsel for three Judicial Enquiry Commissions headed by retired as well as sitting Judges of the High Court.
He was elevated as the Additional Judge of Rajasthan High Court in 2011. The Supreme Court Collegium in its resolution dated 07-02-2023 recommended the appointment of Justice Sandeep Mehta, as the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court and specified that, Rajasthan High Court is unrepresented among the Chief Justices of the High Courts. The Resolution also stated that previously, Justice K. Vinod Chandran had been recommended as Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court but was recommended as Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Patna through a separate resolution. Subsequently, the Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India, notified the appointment of Justice Sandeep Mehta, as the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court on 12-02-2023.
The Supreme Court Collegium recommended appointment of Justice Sandeep Mehta, Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court, as the Supreme Court Judge on 6-11-2023 and he took oath on 9-11-2023. Justice Sandeep Mehta will be retiring on 10-01-2028.
Notable Decisions of Justice Sandeep Mehta
In an appeal filed against the order passed by the Delhi High Court, wherein the Court affirmed the District Court’s decision to declare the appellant’s application for making of the award as premature because it was filed before the commencement of the limitation period for filing objection against the award, the division bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. set aside the impugned order and directed the District Judge to take up and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of five months from the date of receipt of this judgment. The Court reaffirmed that the date of receiving the copy of the award is not the relevant trigger for limitation, but rather the point at which the party becomes aware of its availability. [Krishna Devi v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 24]
While considering the instant appeal revolving around Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., noted that there are many decisions which are not only inconsistent with one another on principle but have tried to negotiate a contrary view by distinguishing them on facts or by simply ignoring the binding decision. Hence the Court was of the view that there must be clarity and certainty in the interpretation of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. Therefore, the Court directed the Registry to place the instant order along with appeal paper book before the Chief Justice of India for constituting an appropriate larger bench to reconcile the principles laid down in various Supreme Court decisions concerning Section 14 and for restating the law on the interplay between sub-clauses (1) and (2) of Section 14. [Tej Bhan v. Ram Kishan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3661]
Supreme Court upholds land acquisition for Yamuna Expressway; Justifies Invocation of Urgency Clause
In batch of appeals arising out of the land acquisition proceedings initiated by State of Uttar Pradesh for planned development in the District Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, through Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (‘YEIDA’) by invoking ‘urgency provisions’ incorporated in Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,(‘the Act’), the division bench of BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta* , JJ. justified the State’s decision to invoke the urgency provisions under Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act, allowing the acquisition to proceed without the usual hearing of objections under Section 5-A of the Act and upheld the land acquisition proceedings. [Kali Charan v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3472]
In an appeal filed against the judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court, wherein the Court set aside the judgment dated 05-06-2015 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, whereby, the Tribunal had allowed the Claim Petition preferred by the appellant, the division bench of PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. set aside the impugned judgment and restored the order rendered by the Public Service Tribunal and reiterated that recording of evidence in a disciplinary proceeding proposing charges of a major punishment is mandatory, and mere production of documents is not enough, contents of documentary evidence have to be proved by examining witnesses. [Satyendra Singh v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325]
In a civil appeal against the judgment passed by Madras High Court, whereby the Court reversed the judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, rejecting the Original Application, challenging the proposed action of revision and fixation of appellants seniority in the Engine Factory, the division bench of Sandeep Mehta and R. Mahadevan, JJ. while upholding the impugned judgment viewed that the subsequent Government Order dated 4-08-2015 cannot be read as a clarification and therefore cannot be made applicable retrospectively. The said GO has substantively modified the position governing seniority in the Industrial Establishments by reviving the earlier OM, and supersedes the orders/circulars, which were holding the field over more than a decade. Therefore, giving retrospective effect to the GO dated 4-08-2015 would have catastrophic effect on the seniority of the entire cadre. [V. Vincent Velankanni v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2642]
In a civil appeal filed by New Delhi Municipal Council (‘NDMC’) and Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee (‘DSGMC’) against a judgment passed by the Delhi High Court, wherein the Court directed NDMC to reimburse the pay and perquisites including the pension and other benefits accruing to the staff of the school and then to recover the same from DSGMC, the division bench of Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ. held that NDMC would not be liable for absorption and payment of benefits to the excess staff of the school run by the DSGMC on account of the closure of the school done by the DSGMC without the prior approval of the NDMC. [NDMC v. Manju Tomar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2272]
While deliberating over the instant appeal challenging Delhi High Court’s decision to uphold Central Administrative Tribunal’s (CAT) decision to allow respondent’s application challenging the denial of promotional benefits to him, the Division Bench of Sandeep Mehta* and R. Mahadevan, JJ., held that the disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said to be initiated against a government employee only when a charge memo is issued to the employee in a disciplinary proceeding or a charge-sheet for a criminal prosecution is filed in the competent Court. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after issuance of the charge-memo/charge-sheet is issued. The pendency of investigation and grant of prosecution sanction will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. [Union of India v. Doly Loyi, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2613]
While considering the instant appeal revolving around a contentious finding whereby, the car driver, was held jointly responsible for causing the accident along with the driver/owner of the offending truck leading to the claims of the appellant & dependents of the deceased-passengers being deducted by 50% on the principle of contributory negligence; the Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., held that the finding was perverse in law. The Court further held that finding of the MACT and Karnataka High Court, which reduced the claims of the legal heirs of the deceased and the injured, other than the legal heirs of the driver, was also invalid in the eyes of law. The Court further found that the contributory negligence of the car driver was vicariously applied to the passengers to reduce the compensation, which is prima facie illegal and impermissible. [Sushma v. Nitin Ganapati Rangole, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2584]
While considering the instant appeal wherein the order by the Bihar Government directing reduction in the pay scale and recovery of excess recovery of excess amount and the order of Patna High Court upholding the same, was challenged by the appellant; the Division Bench of Sandeep Mehta* and R. Mahadevan, JJ., opined that that any decision taken by the State Government to reduce an employee’s pay scale and recover the excess amount, cannot be applied retrospectively and that too after a long time gap. The Court further stated that any step of reduction in the pay scale and recovery from a government employee would be like a punitive action because the same has drastic civil and evil consequences. [Jagdish Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1909]
In a civil appeal against Rajasthan High Court’s Division Bench decision whereby, the appeal against decision of the Single Judge for upholding the Civil Court’s decision as to widow wife’s right to be maintained from the suit property of the Hindu family, was dismissed, the Division Bench of BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ. allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned decisions. The Bench reiterated that for establishing full ownership on the undivided joint family estate under Section 14(1) of the Succession Act, the Hindu female must not only be possessed of the property, but she must have acquired the property. [Mukatlal v. Kailash Chand, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 964]
In a criminal appeal filed by the State of West Bengal for assailing the legality and validity of the judgment passed by the Calcutta High Court, wherein the Court held that only a Special Court constituted by the Central Government or the State Government as per the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (‘NIA Act’) had the exclusive jurisdiction to try the offences under UAPA, the Division Bench of BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ. while setting aside the impugned judgment, held that when the State has not constituted a Special Court for trial of offences set out in the Schedule to the NIA Act, the Sessions Court within whose jurisdiction, the offence took place has the power and jurisdiction to deal with the case by virtue of the Section 22 (3) of the NIA Act. [State of W.B. v. Jayeeta Das, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 550]
Can a company file a consumer complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986? SC clarifies
In a civil appeal under Section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (‘Act of 2019’) by the Kozyflex Mattresses Private Limited (‘insured-appellant’) against the final decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘NCDRC’), rejecting the Consumer Case filed by the insured-appellant for a direction to the SBI General Insurance Company(‘SBI-insurance’) to indemnify it for the loss caused by fire in the manufacturing unit (‘insured premises’) of the insured-appellant company, the Division Bench of BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ. allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned decision. The matter was remitted to the NCDRC. [Kozyflex Mattresses (P) Ltd. v. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2024) 7 SCC 140]
In a writ petition seeking an investigation against the promoters, directors, beneficiaries and key-managerial personnel and shell entities of auto parts maker Amtek Auto Limited Group (‘Amtek Auto’), the division bench of BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ. has directed Directorate of Enforcement(‘ED’) to investigate against former promoters of Amtek Auto for allegedly siphoning over Rs. 20,000 crores obtained from public banks, after observing that there appeared to be prima facie material to indicate collusion in the scam by bank officials. The Court has asked ED to file a status report before the next date of the hearing, that is after six months. [Jaskaran Singh Chawla v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 255]
Gauhati High Court reverses DRT order to condone delay of 224 days
A challenge against decision of Debt Recovery Tribunal for condonation of delay of 224 days in preferring the SARFAESI application under Section 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, explained the restriction on DRT for condonation of delay, and exercised its jurisdiction to condone such delay and reverse the DRT order. [Bornali Sarmah v. Punjab National Bank, 2023 SCC OnLine Gau 1166]
Rajasthan HC | Is Juvenile Justice Act totally foreign to the concept of “right of hearing” given to the complainant/CICL in bail applications?
The Court held that “The apprehension expressed regarding the likelihood of the petitioner coming into contact with other offenders can be taken off by requiring his natural guardian to furnish a suitable undertaking. I am of the opinion that petitioner child is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Consequently, the instant revision is allowed.” [X v. State2]
The Division Bench of Sandeep Mehta and Kumari Prabha Sharma, JJ., dismissed the allegations of dowry demand, cruelty against the father-in-law and husband of the deceased in view of the prosecution theory regarding homicidal death being nothing short of sheer exaggeration. [Gopal v. State of Rajasthan3]
The division bench of Sandeep Mehta and Kuldeep Mathur, JJ., set aside the order of the Joint Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax (‘GST’) for delayed payment of tax due to violation of mandatory requirement of Section 75(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘CGST Act’). The Court concluded that the Officer did not consider the reply filed by the petitioner, while passing the order characterizing it as sketchy and non-speaking on the face of it. The Court while setting aside the order, asserted that it suffered from non-application of mind and was in violation of mandatory requirement of section 75(6) of the CGST Act. [Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Raj 2478]
The Division Bench of Sandeep Mehta and Sameer Jain, JJ., allowed the appeal and quashed and set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence in a case of dowry death. The Court held that “we are persuaded to accept the plea of insanity advanced on behalf of the appellant to overturn his conviction as recorded by the trial court by the impugned Judgment.” [Mohan Lal v. State, 2022 SCC OnLine Raj 185]
The Division Bench of Sandeep Mehta and Abhay Chaturvedi, JJ., allowed a Habeas Corpus Petition in favour of the petitioner allowing him to stay with his wife and directed the authorities to provide her with adequate protection. [Dinesh Suthar v. State of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 1229]
1. https://www.sci.gov.in/judge/justice-sandeep-mehta/
2. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 494 of 2021
3. DB Criminal Appeal No. 799 of 2014