Know Thy Newly Appointed Supreme Court Judge: Justice Joymalya Bagchi

On 17-3-2025, the Supreme Court Bench inducted Justice Jomalya Bagchi, thereby taking the Court’s current judicial strength up to 33 Judges. We have thus curated the important career milestones and notable High Court decision of the newly appointed Supreme Court Judge.

Early Life and Education¹

Justice Joymalya Bagchi was born on 3-10-1966 and was educated at Calcutta Boys’ School. Showing interest in law Justice Bagchi ventured to Calcutta University and enrolled himself in the University’s 5-year LL.B course, wherein he performed remarkably by attaining first position in all LL. B examinations.

Career as an Advocate²

After completion of his graduation in law in 1991, Justice Bagchi enrolled as an Advocate with the West Bengal Bar Association in the same year in November and commenced his practice from Calcutta High Court.

Justice Bagchi’s legal practice extended to the major fields in law such as Constitution, Civil and Criminal. Throughout his career, Justice Bagchi handled several significant cases in criminal and constitutional law, including death sentence and clemency matters, appearing before the Calcutta High Court, other High Courts, and the Supreme Court of India.

*Did You Know? Justice Joymalya Bagchi successfully argued before a Special Bench of the Calcutta High Court against the West Bengal government’s ban on the book ‘Dwikhondito’, authored by Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen³.

Furthermore Justice Joymalya Bagchi actively engaged in public interest litigations; represented human rights organisations; advocated for civil liberties and environmental protection. His legal expertise led to his empanelment as an advocate for the Union of India, the State of West Bengal, and various corporations, including Kolkata Municipal Corporation, Kolkata Port Trust, and Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation.

Academic Pursuits⁴

Justice Joymalya Bagchi not only devoted his time in fighting cases before the Courts but he was also active in imparting his knowledge and experience to the students via several guest lectures etc.

• Justice Bagchi was a part time lecturer in Calcutta University’s Law Department and Jogesh Chandra Choudhury College of Law.

• Justice Bagchi was a guest lecturer at the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS)

• He was a guest speaker in a UGC sponsored refresher course on ‘Human Rights in India’ organised at Jadhavpur University and Charu Chandra College, Kolkata.

• Justice Bagchi also wrote several articles on many legal issues that were published in various reputed journals.

Career as a Judge⁵

Justice Joymalya Bagchi was appointed as a Judge of the High Court at Calcutta on 27-6-2011 and transferred to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 4-1-2021. He was repatriated to the High Court at Calcutta on 8-11-2021.

The Supreme Court Collegium on taking into account Justice Bagchi’s almost 13-year tenure as a High Court Judge and carefully evaluating merit, integrity and competence and accommodating a plurality of considerations deemed it fit to recommend his name for appointment as Judge of Supreme Court. Emphasising on representation the Collegium also considered the fact that, at present, the Bench of the Supreme Court is represented by only one Judge from the High Court at Calcutta.

*Did You Know? Justice Joymalya Bagchi stands at Sl. No. 11 in the combined all-India seniority of High Court Judges, including Chief Justices.

Justice Bagchi’s appointment was later confirmed by the Ministry of Law and Justice on 10-3-2025 and he was sworn-in as Supreme Court Judge on 17-3-2025.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi will also be in line to become the Chief Justice of India in May 2031 till his retirement in 2-10-2031.

*Did You Know? Justice Joymalya Bagchi will be the 2nd Chief Justice of India from Calcutta High Court after late Justice Altamas Kabir who was CJI from 2012 to 2013.⁶

Notable Judgments

“Life Imprisonment for remainder of natural life a more humane substitute to address recidivism concerns”; Calcutta HC

In a case involving multiple appeals and death references against a judgment and order passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge where the appellants are convicted for heinous crimes of rape and murder committed against the victim, a division bench comprising of Ajay Kumar Gupta and Joymalya Bagchi,* JJ., held that the State had failed to prove the conspiracy and shared common intention of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, and the death penalty was unwarranted. The Court also stated that, “Alternative punishment of life imprisonment for the remainder of natural life is a more humane substitute that adequately addresses societal concerns of recidivism.” [State of W.B. v. Saiful Ali, 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 3411]

Calcutta High Court prioritises ‘reformation and rehabilitation’ over ‘Death Penalty’ in heinous case of rape and murder of girl child

While deciding an appeal against the conviction for rape and murder of a minor girl child, a Division bench comprising of Gaurang Kanth and Joymalya Bagchi,* JJ., held that despite the heinousness of the crime, the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the appellants over their nearly two-decade incarceration outweighed the grounds for imposing the death penalty. The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court and set off the period of detention served by the appellants during investigation, inquiry, and trial against their substantive sentences. “Mere reference to gravity or heinousness of the crime is not enough. The Court prior to imposing death penalty must satisfy its conscience that there is no possibility of rehabilitation and reformation of the convict and he would remain a continuing threat to society.” [Samsuddin Sk. v. State of W.B., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2667]

Calcutta High Court issues practice directions for delays in dispatching Trial Court Records to High Court

The present case arises from concerns regarding the transmission of Trial Court records to the High Court, particularly the delays and irregularities observed in their dispatch. A division bench of Subhendu Samanta and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., issued practise directions to address the delays and irregularities in the transmission of Trial Court Records to High Court. The Court, upon perusal of the report on this issue, noted significant discrepancies in the Trial Court records that had been transmitted. Consequently, the Court directed that the records be sent back to the Trial Court for necessary corrections, which were to be completed within a fortnight before retransmission. As the existing procedural rules did not prescribe any specific time frame for the dispatch of Trial Court records to the High Court, nor did they set deadlines for rectification of errors in the records or preparation of paper books upon receipt. [In re Putul Ghosh, 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 1244]

Calcutta High Court directs Enhancement of Forensic Capabilities due to BNSS Enforcement, recognizing NIBMG as Government Forensic Laboratory

The instant petition which was taken up by the Court on its own motion due to the increasing pressure on existing forensic laboratories to handle the growing volume of DNA and forensic analyses required by the imminent enforcement of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) from 01-07-2024, which mandates forensic examination in serious criminal cases, highlighting the need to enhance forensic capabilities and resources by recognizing the National Institute of Bio Medical Generics (NIBMG) and its scientists as ‘Government Scientific Experts’ under the Code of Criminal Procedure. A division bench of Joymalya Bagchi and Gaurang Kanth, JJ., directed Union of India to take necessary steps in notifying National Institute of Bio Medical Generics (NIBMG) as a Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) and the Government scientists attached to it as ‘Government Scientific Experts’ under Section 293(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 329(4) BNSS) to undertake DNA and other forensic examinations of samples for effective implementation of the legislative intent of the new procedural law with regard to use of forensic tools in investigation. [Court on its motion v. State, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 6610]

[Ekbalpore Violence] Calcutta High Court orders SIT to probe in the Kolkata communal violence

While deciding a petition related to Ekbalpore — Mominpur communal violence on the eve of Laxmi Puja, the Division Bench comprising of Apurba Sinha Ray and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., ordered the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) of experienced police officers to probe into the unfortunate incident in the city of Kolkata. In the present case, two petitions were filed by the petitioner alleging that the State Police administration remained a silent spectator to the flaring of communal violence in the Ekbalpore-Mominpur area on the eve of Laxmi Puja and prayed for various reliefs. The petitioner contended that steps were not taken to ensure protection of life and property of the members of the Scheduled Caste community affected by the riot and bombs were thrown in the locality but requisite steps under the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008 were not taken. It was also stated by the petitioner that adequate compensation was not given to the victims and other restitutive measures were not taken. [Nabendu Kumar Bandyopadhyay v. State of W.B.⁷]

Only Green Crackers with QR code to be bursted on Diwali in the State of West Bengal; directs Calcutta HC

While deciding a matter related to sale of green firecrackers in West Bengal, the Division bench comprising of Apurba Sinha Ray and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., directed the Pollution Control Board as well as the police authorities to ensure that there is no importation, sale or bursting of crackers other than the green crackers bearing QR Code in the State of West Bengal. In the instant matter, a Public Interest Litigation was filled allegation the violation of Supreme Court’s green cracker norms provides in Arjun Gopal v. Union of India, (2019) 13 SCC 523, in the State of West Bengal. The petitioner contended that neither the State of West Bengal nor the State Pollution Control Board has formulated a mechanism to ensure sale and bursting of green crackers only, thus, resulting in severe noise and air pollution in the State in previous years. The petitioner prayed for a total ban on the sale of firecrackers in the State. [Sabuj Mancha v. State of W.B., 2022 SCC OnLine Cal 3144]

Abscondence of an accused by itself does not establish his guilt; Calcutta HC sets aside conviction and sentence for punishment of murder

The Division Bench of Joymalya Bagchi and Ananya Bandyopadhyay, JJ. allowed an appeal which was directed against the judgment and order convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine. A 10 year old boy, had gone out to fly kite with his friends and didn’t return that evening, next day body of the boy was found lying in the canal. Two days later, father of the boy returned to his native village from his place of work at Mumbai and filed written complaint alleging his son had been murdered by an unknown person. Couple of days later, he made statement implicating the appellant who was the Moulabi of a nearby mosque. It was alleged that the appellant had illicit relationship with mother of the boy. The child had disclosed the illicit relationship to his father and accordingly appellant nursed a grudge against him. In course of investigation, a gunny bag and rope were recovered from an open spot near the mosque. Appellant absconded and was later arrested. In conclusion of trial the above mentioned punishment was granted. [Md. Firoz Ala v. State of West Bengal⁸]

Penetration even of the slightest degree is necessary to establish the offence of rape: Calcutta High Court reiterates

The Division Bench of Joymalya Bagchi and Bivas Pattanayak, JJ. modified a sentence imposed which was given in relation to commission of offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs 10,000. Prosecution case, as alleged against the appellant was that when family members of the victim girl aged around 11 years had gone to attend ‘Namsankritan’, the appellant came into the house and embraced her. Thereafter, he committed rape on her. Written complaint was lodged by the mother of the victim. [Dipak Singha v. State of W.B.⁹]

Daughter turning major, will not be entitled to maintenance from father? Andhra Pradesh HC explains the law

While explaining the law on whether father is obligated to provide maintenance to his daughter irrespective of the fact that she has turned major, Joymalya Bagchi, J., stated that Magistrate is entitled to entertain an application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and grant monetary relief to meet expenses incurred and losses suffered by an aggrieved person under Section 20 of the DV Act, in the event of domestic violence by way of economic abuse is established. Conjoint reading of Section 2(a) and 2(f) of the DV Act would show that a daughter, who is or was living with her father in a domestic relationship by way of consanguinity, is entitled to seek reliefs including monetary relief on her own right as an aggrieved person under Section 2(a) of the DV Act irrespective of the fact whether she is a major or minor. [Menti Trinadha Venkata Ramana v. Menti Lakshmi, 2021 SCC OnLine AP 2860]

Can Commissioner of Central Tax GST Commissionerate withhold the SVLDRS Discharge certificate for transition of disputes credits to GST?

The Division Bench of Joymalya Bagchi and K. Suresh Reddy, JJ., held that, SVLDRS Discharge certificate cannot be withheld for transition of disputed credits to GST. The Bench opined that once the declarant had made the payment of the estimated amount as per the statement in the form of SVLDRS-3 within the stipulated time, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the respondents to proceed with adjudication of the show-cause notice issued under the Central Excise Act. Whether availing of Scheme would attach legitimacy to the Cenvat credit on GTA and C&F Agency services to the tune of Rs 17,34,56,893/- and the same would be eligible for the purpose of transition under Section 140 of the GST Act. The impugned show cause notice with regard to availing of transitional credit under Section 140 of the GST Act in respect of the Cenvat Credit cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. Court decided not to interfere with the show cause notice and leave it open to the adjudicating authority to take an appropriate decision. Bench also observed that nothing in the scheme empowers the respondent to refuse issuance of the discharge certificate of the basis of any subsequent event apart from the fact of discovery of false statement relating to any material particular in declaration. Availing of transitional credit by the petitioner under the GST Act on the Cenvat credit for GTA and C&F Agency services under the Central Excise Act is a subsequent and separate transaction from the declaration made by him under the Scheme and the adjudication of such claim cannot be said to be barred in law or without jurisdiction. [Bharathi Cement Corporation (P) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Central Tax¹⁰]