Know Thy Judge| Supreme Court of India: Justice Dipankar Datta

“As it is, dignity of an individual, even after he is dead, cannot be left to the mercy of the journalists/reporters. The same, being part of Article 21, has to be protected.”

Justice Dipankar Datta¹

Early Life²

Born on 09-02-1965 in a family with legal background, Justice Dipankar Datta is the son of a former Calcutta High Court Judge, late Justice Salil Kumar Datta and brother-in-law of former Supreme Court Judge, Justice Amitava Roy.

*Did you Know? Justice Dipankar Datta is a second -generation Judge.³

Education and Advocacy⁴

Justice Datta obtained his LL.B. degree from the Hazra Law College, University of Calcutta in 1989 and was in the first batch of the University’s 5- year law course. He was enrolled as an Advocate on 16-11-1989. He worked as a Counsel for the Union of India since 1998 and as a Junior Standing Counsel for the State of West Bengal for two years.

*Did you Know? Justice Dipankar Datta had a brief stint as guest lecturer at the University of Calcutta where he taught Constitutional Law.⁵

Judgeship⁶

Justice Dipankar Datta served as a Judge of the Calcutta High Court from 22-06-06 to 27-04-20. Thereafter, he was elevated as the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court⁷. He was further elevated as a Judge of Supreme Court on 12 -12-22.

Notable Supreme Court Judgments

In Madhushree Datta v. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 165, While considering the instant appeal challenging Karnataka High Court’s decision refusing to quash chargesheet filed against the appellants for offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 509, and 511 of the Penal Code, 1860 and for allegedly using filthy language against the complainant; the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ., explained that in the instant case it will be essential for the Court to carefully assess the evidence presented, in order to determine whether there is sufficient material to establish the intention and knowledge on the part of the appellants, to insult the modesty of the complainant or, whether any act was intended to shock the sense of decency of the complainant being a woman. The Court pointed out that the term “filthy language,” when examined in isolation, and without any contextual framework or accompanying words, indicating an intent to insult the complainant’s modesty, does not fall within the purview of Section 509 of the IPC. Read more
In Bhupinderpal Singh Gill v. State of Punjab, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 113, a civil appeal filed against Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision giving partial relief to the appellant by modifying the punishment from the penalty of a 2% pension cut with cumulative/permanent effect to a 2% pension cut for 5 years whereafter the appellant would be made entitled to a full pension, for alleged misconduct and taking unsanctioned leave, the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta* and Manmohan, JJ. allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned decision. The Bench said that there was no record of the Civil Surgeon’s refusal to sanction leave being communicated to the appellant. The Court held that the appellant shall be entitled to a full pension without any cut. Whatever quantum has been deducted from his pension shall be returned, within three months from the date, together with interest @ 6% per annum. The Court stated that the matter at hand was a case where certain officials of the Government stooped too low to punish a senior doctor, on the verge of retirement, for no better reason than that he had dared to take on the mighty executive in a Court of law. Read more
In Sharmad v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 71, wherein set of two civil appeals against the Kerala High Court’s decision, allowing the third respondent’s petition challenging the legality of the appellant’s promotion to the post of Associate Professor in Neurosurgery and setting aside the Kerala Administrative Tribunal’s order which dismissed the third respondent’s application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 in limine, the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. allowed the present Associate Professor’s plea and dismissed the third respondent’s claim raising a challenge to the appellant’s promotion. The Bench set aside the High Court’s decision stating that the eligibility criteria for appointment on posts borne in Branch — I i.e. Administrative Cadre and in Branch — II i.e. Teaching Cadre, in the absence of recruitment rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, were provided by G.O. dated 07-04-2008 which is the executive order governing recruitment. The Bench also reiterated that in the absence of rules, recourse to recruitment based on executive orders could be taken. The Bench said that even without examining whether the present Government Order (‘G.O’) dated 14-12-2009 had any application to the promotional appointment in question, it would be just and proper to focus on the requirements of G.O. dated 07-04-2008. Read more
In Railway Protection Force, Kottayam v. Mathew K Cherian, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 51, While considering the instant appeals revolving around the common issue of interpretation of Section 143 of the Railways Act, 1989; the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ., explained that, Section 143, on its plain language, prohibits any person, other than a railway servant or an authorised agent, to conduct the business of procurement and supply of railway tickets. The provision does not specify the modalities of the procurement and supply. Hence, if the Section is read and its contents are given the natural and ordinary meaning, keeping in mind the objective and purpose of the legislation, it admits of no doubt that this provision criminalises unauthorised procurement and supply, irrespective of the mode of procurement and supply. Read more
In Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University v. Monika, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3540, the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta* and R. Mahadevan, JJ., held that the respondent in the instant case could not have been denied the benefit of mark for experience merely because at the time of appointment as outsourced manpower, she was not appointed on a sanctioned post. The Court further emphasised that the true thrust of every selection process ought to be to find out and select suitable candidates, having experience in the related work and fulfilling other criteria, from among eligible candidates and to go ahead with appointing the more meritorious of those found suitable. If indeed an individual without having any security of service performs up to the mark and receives commendation from none other than the Head of the Department, who must have closely watched his/her performance, it would occasion a failure of justice to exclude such individual for no better reason than that he/she did not work on a sanctioned post. “If indeed such be the requirement, it had to be made explicitly clear in the Advertisement without any ambiguity so as not to generate false hopes in the minds of individuals aspiring for public employment”. The Court held that Constitutional mandate prescribed in Articles 14 and 16 read with the Preambular promise of securing social justice, means that non-grant of mark for experience to the 1st Respondent was not proper and legal. Read more
In Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3213, Dipanakar Datta, J.*, dissented with the majority verdict overruling the Five-Judge Bench verdict in S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India, 1967 SCC OnLine SC 321, which held that an institution incorporated by a statute cannot claim to be a minority institution. In his separate dissenting opinion, Dipankar Datta, J., stated that the tests employed for identifying post-Constitution minority educational institutions cannot be the same as for identification of pre-Constitution institutions, more so when a college established by the minority is elevated to the status of a university upon establishment and incorporation through statute. He mentioned that there can be no dispute that an educational institution undoubtedly established prior to the Constitution coming into force by a minority community, either based on religion or language, and administered as well by such community would be entitled to the protection envisaged in Article 30(1). However, if there is a serious doubt as to who established the educational institution and how it was established, question of piercing of the minority veil does not arise in the absence of any concept of minority when the institution came to be established. Justice Datta remarked that the dominant purpose for which the minority community is sought to be extended protection post-Constitution era, is to protect the minority from the domination of the majority. Read more
In Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar v. State of Gujarat, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2985, the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ., strictly observing the egregious breach of law by the Gujarat High Court in dealing with the appellant’s case, and being mindful of the pressure on the High Court Judges vis-a-vis pendency of cases, laid down 3 following options/guidelines for the Judges as regards to the time limit for delivering/ pronouncing judgments by the High Courts:
1. dictation of the judgment in open court.
2. reserving the judgment and pronouncing it on a future day;
3. pronouncing the operative part and the outcome, i.e., “dismissed” or “allowed” or “disposed of”, while simultaneously expressing that reasons would follow in a detailed final judgment supporting such outcome. Qua 3rd option, the Court said that it will in the interest of justice if any Judge, who prefers the third option, makes the reasons available in the public domain, preferably within 2 days thereof but, in any case, not beyond 5 days to eliminate any kind of suspicion in the mind of the party losing the legal battle.
The Court further suggested that if the pressure of work is such that in the assessment of the Judge, reasons in support of the final judgment cannot be made available, without fail, in 5 days, it would be a better option to reserve the judgment. Furthermore, if the ultimate order would have the effect of changing the status of the parties or the subject matter of the lis, it would always be advisable to stick to the course envisaged in Order XX, CPC. Read more
In Satyanand Singh v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 343, the division bench of Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta*, JJ. has said that by misdiagnosing the appellant with AIDS, Army subjected him to further misery in not only combating social stigma against a disease but also from the dreadful thought of an imminent death resulting from an incurable disease, thus granted him compensation of Rs.50 Lakhs on account of wrongful termination of services, leave encashment dues, non-reimbursement of medical expenses and the social stigma faced, to be paid within eight weeks from the date of this judgment without fail. Read more
In Union of India v. Uzair Imran, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1308, wherein the respondent’s removal from the appointment to the post of Postal Assistants and Sorting Assistants was held as unwarranted, the Division Bench of Bela M. Trivedi and Dipankar Datta*, JJ. directed for the appointment of the respondent to the post of Postal Assistant for which he was selected, Read more
In Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 668, the division bench of S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta*, JJ was dealing with a case under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 when it went on to explain when an insult takes form of a ‘caste based insult’ and observed that, “If one calls another an idiot (bewaqoof) or a fool (murkh) or a thief (chor) in any place within public view, this would obviously constitute an act intended to insult or humiliate by user of abusive or offensive language. Even if the same be directed generally to a person, who happens to be a Scheduled Caste or Tribe, per se, it may not be sufficient to attract section 3(1)(x) unless such words are laced with casteist remarks.” Read more
In Jini Dhanrajgir v. Shibu Mathew, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 643, wherein in a challenge against the Executing Court’s order finding the objections raised by the respondents maintainable during execution proceedings, the Division Bench of A.S. Bopanna and Dipankar Datta*, JJ. upheld the same considering the already settled law mandating the Executing Courts to determine all questions arising between parties related to execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree, which may not be adjudicated in a separate suit. Read more
In Afjal Ansari v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1676, while hearing an appeal against Allahabad High Court’s decision refusing to grant a stay on Bahujan Samaj Party member Afjal Ansari’s conviction in 2007 Gangster Act case, the three Judges Bench of Surya Kant*, Dipankar Datta**, and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. were called upon to decide a stay of Afjal Ansari’s conviction, during the pendency of his Criminal Appeal before the High Court. The Court by a majority of 2:1 granted him interim relief and suspended his conviction and restored his status as a Lok Sabha MP with certain conditions. Read more
Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of M.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 984, In a criminal appeal filed by two convicts against the judgment and order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, wherein the Court dismissed the appeals filed by the convicts against their conviction, the division of S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta*, JJ., while setting aside the impugned conviction orders, said that their convictions cannot be justified solely on the basis of illusory knowledge regarding their involvement in the crime. Further, it directed immediate release of the convicts from custody. Read more
In Unibros v. All India Radio, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1366, in an appeal by Unibros (‘appellant’) against the Judgment and Order of the Delhi High Court, whereby, the appellant’s appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) was dismissed and the Single Judge’s order was affirmed, whereby the All India Radio’s (‘respondent’) objection under Section 34 of the Act was allowed resulting in setting aside of an arbitral Award wherein, a sum of Rs. 1,44,83,830 was awarded for delay in completing the work beyond the stipulated contract period, the Division Bench of S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta*, JJ. dismissed the appeal for being devoid of merits and held that the arbitral award was in conflict with the ‘public policy of India’ as contemplated by Section 34(2)(b) of the Act. Read more
In Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1106, in a criminal appeal against the Judgment and order of Telangana High Court, whereby appellant’s petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus was dismissed and the detention order of the husband was upheld, the Division Bench of Surya Kant, and Dipankar Datta*, JJ. quashed the High Court’s judgment. The Court also laid down certain tests for examination of legality of the order of preventive detention. Read more
In Asma Lateef v. Shabbir Ahmad, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 42 the Three-Judge Bench of B.R Gavai, Dipankar Datta* and Aravind Kumar, JJ. while upholding the impugned judgment and order, held that the decision rendered by a Court on the merits of a controversy in favour of the plaintiff without first adjudicating on its competence to decide such controversy would amount to a decision being rendered on an illegal and erroneous assumption of jurisdiction and, thus, be assailable as lacking in inherent jurisdiction and be treated as a nullity in the eye of law. Thus, the Trial Court had no authority to decree the suit against the respondent 4 in exercise of its power under Rule 10 of Order VIII, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’). Further, it said that the question of jurisdiction would assume importance even at the stage a Court considers the question of grant of interim relief. Read more
In Afjal Ansari v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1676, while hearing an appeal against Allahabad High Court’s decision refusing to grant a stay on Bahujan Samaj Party member Afjal Ansari’s conviction in 2007 Gangster Act case, the three Judges Bench of Surya Kant*, Dipankar Datta**, and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. were called upon to decide a stay of Afjal Ansari’s conviction, during the pendency of his Criminal Appeal before the High Court. The Court by a majority of 2:1 granted him interim relief and suspended his conviction and restored his status as a Lok Sabha MP with certain conditions. Read more
Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of M.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 984, In a criminal appeal filed by two convicts against the judgment and order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, wherein the Court dismissed the appeals filed by the convicts against their conviction, the division of S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta*, JJ., while setting aside the impugned conviction orders, said that their convictions cannot be justified solely on the basis of illusory knowledge regarding their involvement in the crime. Further, it directed immediate release of the convicts from custody. Read more
In Unibros v. All India Radio, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1366, in an appeal by Unibros (‘appellant’) against the Judgment and Order of the Delhi High Court, whereby, the appellant’s appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) was dismissed and the Single Judge’s order was affirmed, whereby the All India Radio’s (‘respondent’) objection under Section 34 of the Act was allowed resulting in setting aside of an arbitral Award wherein, a sum of Rs. 1,44,83,830 was awarded for delay in completing the work beyond the stipulated contract period, the Division Bench of S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta*, JJ. dismissed the appeal for being devoid of merits and held that the arbitral award was in conflict with the ‘public policy of India’ as contemplated by Section 34(2)(b) of the Act. Read more
In Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1106, in a criminal appeal against the Judgment and order of Telangana High Court, whereby appellant’s petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus was dismissed and the detention order of the husband was upheld, the Division Bench of Surya Kant, and Dipankar Datta*, JJ. quashed the High Court’s judgment. The Court also laid down certain tests for examination of legality of the order of preventive detention. Read more
In Asma Lateef v. Shabbir Ahmad, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 42 the Three-Judge Bench of B.R Gavai, Dipankar Datta* and Aravind Kumar, JJ. while upholding the impugned judgment and order, held that the decision rendered by a Court on the merits of a controversy in favour of the plaintiff without first adjudicating on its competence to decide such controversy would amount to a decision being rendered on an illegal and erroneous assumption of jurisdiction and, thus, be assailable as lacking in inherent jurisdiction and be treated as a nullity in the eye of law. Thus, the Trial Court had no authority to decree the suit against the respondent 4 in exercise of its power under Rule 10 of Order VIII, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’). Further, it said that the question of jurisdiction would assume importance even at the stage a Court considers the question of grant of interim relief.
In Munna Lal v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 80, wherein the division bench of S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta*, JJ. held that the charge that the convicts had committed murder was not proved beyond reasonable doubt; hence, they were and are entitled to the benefit of doubt. Thus, the Trial Court’s judgment of conviction and order of sentence being unsustainable, was set aside; consequently, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, upholding the conviction and sentence, too was set aside. Read more
In Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise & Taxation Officer, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 95, the division bench of S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta*, JJ. held that mere availability of an alternative remedy of appeal or revision, which the party has not pursued, would not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court and render a writ petition “not maintainable. Further, it held that it is not the Assessing Authority’s orders but those passed by the Revisional Authority, which suffer from patent illegality. Thus, it invalidated the impugned final revisional orders for the Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2004-05, and made the interim order dated 18-01-2010 absolute. Read more

*Did You Know? Justice Datta played a significant role in ensuring home vaccination for the bedridden patients in Maharashtra during COVID-19, directing the State Government to introduce a mechanism for vaccination.⁸

Notable High Court Judgments

We have curated the following notable decisions rendered by Justice Dipankar Datta during his tenure in the High Courts of Calcutta and Bombay:

In Nilesh Navalakha v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 56, the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta, CJ and G.S. Kulkarni, J. said that the duty of the media to have news items printed or telecast based on true and correct version relating to incidents worth reporting accurately and without any distortion or embellishment as well as without taking sides, cannot, therefore, be over-emphasised and held that media-trials during criminal investigation to be an interference with the administration of justice, amounting to ‘contempt of court’ as per the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Read more
In Pradeep Gandhy v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 662, the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta, CJ and S.S. Shinde, J. while addressing petitions filed against the burial of dead bodies of COVID-19 infected patients in kabrasthans, quoted Oscar Wilde to describe death and directed the State as well as the Corporation to ensure that all protective measures envisaged in the Government guidelines are strictly complied with not only by the members of the family of the deceased at the time of burial but also by those second-line workers who would, as part of their duty, deal with the cadaver of any suspected/confirmed COVID-19 infected individual immediately after death. Read more
In Jan Swasthya Abhiyan v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 713, the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta, C.J., and A.A. Sayed, J. while hearing petitions about facilities being provided during COVID-19 invoked portions of the speech – “Tryst with Destiny”, given by the India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru on midnight August 14, 1947, to remind the authorities that service of India means the service of the millions who suffer, and observed that in view of the extraordinary situations emerging due to Covid-19, it is more imperative that the Government and the citizens, work together in order to put up a strong fight before the adversary that is Covid-19. Read more
Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. CST, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1767, the issue before the Court in the instant matter was that between a secured creditor (defined in SARFAESI Act and Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act), and the revenue departments of the Central/State Governments, who can legally claim priority for liquidation of their respective dues qua the borrower/dealer upon enforcement of the ‘security interest’ and consequent sale of the ‘secured asset’. The 3 Judge Bench of Dipankar Datta, CJ., and M.S. Karnik and N.J. Jamadar, JJ., while deliberating upon the question went on to frame and answer seven substantial questions of law on the issue. Read more
In Ruju R. Thakker v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 3707, the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta, CJ., and M S Karnik J., directed Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to take urgent steps in fixing the potholes existing as on date as well as the State Government and MCGM to audit the performance of the erring road contractors responsible for the bad road conditions. Read more
In R.S. Madireddy v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 2657, the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta CJ., and M S Karnik J., held that the writ petitions although maintainable on the dates they were instituted, have ceased to be maintainable by reason of privatization of AIL which takes it beyond the jurisdiction to issue a writ or order or direction to it. Read more
In Nikita v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1626, the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta, CJ. and M.S. Karnik, J., took cognizance of a PIL which was filed bringing on record the unclean and unhygienic situation in the washrooms and toilets for the young girl students in Government aided schools. Read more
In Ratan Soli Luth v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 1806 a case relating to the refusal of the Governor to nominate 12 members to the Legislative Council for over a year, Justice Datta while interpreting Arts. 171 and 166 of the Constitution, held that while the Court is not empowered to direct the Governor under Art. 361, however, it is the duty of the Governor to communicate his reservations within a reasonable time, otherwise the statutory intent would be defeated.
In Gera Developments (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 6839 while hearing petitions about the failure of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation to issue occupancy certificate and building completion certificate to multi-storied buildings, called the State government ‘Kumbhakarna’ for failing to take proper action at the right time.
In High Court on its own motion v. Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corpn., 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 386, Justice Datta disposed of a suo motu PIL pertaining to building collapses in Mumbai and directed the Municipal corporations to ensure that broken down structures are managed well in advance to avoid any deaths.
Justice Datta refused to entertain a PIL seeking guidelines for protection of members of Internal Complaints Committee set up by private companies under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act and asked the petitioner to approach Supreme Court, as the High Court did not have powers.
In Rajendra Sadanand Burma v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 2026, while hearing a PIL seeking directions to authorities to take measures to curb death of tribal children due to malnutrition and other lack of facilities, Justice Datta noted that while the State authorities were concerned, some more efforts were required.
In Ganes Chandra Kundu v. State of W.B., 2014 SCC OnLine Cal 5110, Justice Datta directed the State Government to give opportunity to all the petitioners and other employees similarly situated to submit option to switch over to Pension-cum-Gratuity.
In J. Triveni v. State of West Bengal, 2010 SCC OnLine Cal 1692, Justice Datta allowed the petitioners to offer their candidature for direct recruitment from the bar to the cadre of Higher Judicial Officer in the rank of District Judge in the West Bengal Judicial Service, and said that the petitioners having dispatched the registered envelopes through the postal authorities in the manner required at least 48 hours before the stipulated time for receiving applications, they should not be made to suffer for any delay or laches on the part of the postal authorities.
In Sankar Datta v. State of W.B., 2013 SCC OnLine Cal 12183, Justice Datta held that availability of alternative remedy does not oust the jurisdiction of writ Court.