Justice Shripathi Ravindra Bhat is set to retire today after completing his little over four-year tenure as Judge of the Supreme Court. He was born on October 21st, 1985 and completed his schooling at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Faridabad. He went to Hindu College to study B.A. (Hons.) in English. Justice Bhat graduated with his LL.B. degree from Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi in 1982 and got enrolled in the Bar Council of Delhi and started practising in the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court. He became an Advocate on Record (AOR) in 1989.

Justice Bhat was appointed as an Additional Judge in the Delhi High Court on 16.07.2004 and on 20.02.2006 he became a permanent judge. He was elevated as Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court on 05.05.2019, and then to the Supreme Court of India on 23.09.2019.

He has an image of a soft and socialist Judge in the Supreme Court. He has shared the bench with Ex-CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Ex-CJI NV Ramana Ex-CJI UU Lalit, and CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice Bhat would retire from Court No.8 in the Supreme Court. During his judgeship in the Supreme Court he rendered many landmark judgments.

On his last day at the Supreme Court, he would be part of the bench which would deliver 6 judgments and then the Ceremonial Bench which would hear 5 cases. He would sit in Court No.2 with the 2nd Senior Most Judge of the Country Justice S.K. Kaul. He would be given farewell by the Supreme Court Bar Association today in the evening. The wife of Justice is Lalit Muni Bhat and Anirudh Bhat is his wife.

He said during the ceremonial Bench, "There cannot be any better place than this court."

The farewell function could be viewed on the link youtu.be/cFfE26UmUDI.

Among his remarkable judgments, the recent judgment in the Same-Sex Case is the most leading judgment wherein he had authored the judgment for the Majority and held that the Constitution does not recognize the Right to Marriage as a fundamental right.

He was also part of the bench with Justice Dipankar Datta which recently delivered a judgment that any pre-condition of deposit of money while granting bail is bad in law.

Justice Bhat delivered a concurring opinion in the case of Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v Chief Minister, Maharashtra,  where Maharashtra's Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018 was struck down. The act had granted reservation to the Maharashtra Community but was deemed unconstitutional as it exceeded the 50% limit on reservations and violated the 102nd Constitution Amendment. Justice Bhat reasoned that according to Article 342A, only the President possesses the authority to identify and notify socially and educationally backward classes.

In the case of Roche v Cipla, Justice Bhat denied Roche's request for an interim injunction based on public interest. The case revolved around Roche's claim of patent infringement against generic drug manufacturer Cipla. Departing from the usual practice of granting interim injunctions in such cases, Justice Bhat refused the injunction, considering the potential adverse impact on the public due to the significant price difference between Roche's and Cipla's drugs.

In the case of Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi), Justice Bhat highlighted the negative effects of prolonged incarceration on individuals. He emphasized the importance of expeditious trials, particularly in cases involving severe provisions, and expressed concern that lengthy imprisonment could contribute to the development of hardened criminals.

Legality of SC/ST Act Amendment
In the case of Prithvi Raj Chauhan v Union of India the bench of Justice Bhat upheld the constitutional validity of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018 and Section 18A and said that false accusation could be a reality in urban areas but the situation is not so in the country. Bar on Section 438 CRPC to seek anticipatory bail is not violative of fundamental rights under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Indore Development Authority v Manoharlal- In this case, a five-judge Supreme Court Bench clarified issues over State land acquisition failures under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the "2013 Act"). The primary concern was whether the State's inability to pay landowners compensation may cause land acquisition proceedings to be halted. The Court was forced to clarify how the 2013 Act interacts with its repealed predecessor, the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 ('LA Act'). 

Economically Weaker Section quota case.
With three out of five judges on the Constitution bench confirming the amendment, it was clear that its constitutional validity had been upheld. Yet, Justice Lalit had kept the Bar, and anyone else following the livestream of the proceedings, guessing on the side he would take.
Then came Justice S. Ravindra Bhat’s dissenting judgment. Soon after, it was made clear that Chief Justice Lalit too had dissented with the majority. “I have concurred with the view taken by Justice Bhat in its entirety“, he declared.- Section 33 of PWD Act 1995- Reserve Bank of India Vs. A.K. Nair & Ors.

Skin-to-skin judgment-  in a case under the POCSO Act, stating that the most important ingredient constituting sexual assault is sexual intent and not skin-to-skin contact with the child.- concurring judgment- ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA VERSUS SATISH AND ANOTHER.

The entire Team of "The Law Advice" wishes Justice S Ravindra Bhat a very happy, healthy and prosperous retirement life.