MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY MUMBAI

ENGLISH PROJECT

BIOGRAPHY OF HONOURABLE JUSTICE MR. J.S. VERMA

Submitted To: Prof. L.K. Deb

Submitted By: Rishabh Jain
Roll number: 37
Semester I

1
 TABLE OF CONTENT

S. NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

1 INTRODUCTION 3

2 EARLY LIFE AND LEGAL CAREER 4

3 MOST NOTICEABLE CASES 5

POST RETIREMENT PUBLIC SERVICES 10

4

5 JUSTICE VERMA COMMITTEE REPORT SUMMARY 11

6 CONCLUSION 13

7 BIBLIOGRAPHY 14

2
 INTRODUCTION

Jagdish Sharan Verma was an Indian jurist who served as the 27th Chief Justice of India from
25 March 1997 to 18 January 1998. Thereafter he was the Chairman of National Human Rights
Commission from 1999 to 2003, and Chairman of the Justice Verma Committee Report on
Amendments to Criminal Law after the 2012 Delhi gang rape case. He remains one of India's
most highly regarded Chief Justices and eminent jurists.1

He is known for his judicial innovation through landmark judgements, which made him "the
face of judicial activism" in India.2 His decisions are credited with the forging of powerful new
judicial tools such as Continuing Mandamus,3 and the expanded protection of fundamental
rights as in the Vishaka Judgement. 4 Alongside judicial activism and fundamental rights
protection, he is strongly associated with women's empowerment, probity in public life, judicial
accountability, as well as enhancing social justice.5 He has also written several books such as
New Dimensions Of Justice, The New Universe of Human Rights and Report of The
Committee on Amendments to Criminal Law. He has also been awarded with a couple of
awards such as Padma Bhushan and CNN-IBN Indian of the Year Lifetime Achievement.

SCOPE
There was not much information about the early life of Justice J.S. Verma available
anywhere.

METHODOLOGY
The researcher went through various articles available on internet in order to make this
biography of Justice J.S Verma.

1
"The Last Word - The Last Word: Remembering Justice JS Verma". YouTube. (Accessed on August
12, 2016 at 8 pm)
2
"Justice Verma, the face of judicial activism, dies of multiple organ failure". Indian Express.
(Accessed on August 12, 2016 at 8:30 pm)
3
"A brave judge". Indian Express. (Accessed on August 12, 2016 at 9 pm)
4
"Vishaka & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 13 August, 1997". indiankanoon.org. (Accessed on
August 12, 2016 at 9:30 pm)
5
Karuna Nundy (2013-04-25). "Legacy of change through justice". The Hindu. ( Accessed on August
12, 2016 at 10 pm)

3
 EARLY LIFE

Jagdish Sharan Verma was Born on 18th January, 1933. He got his education from Venkat
High School, Satna (Madhya Pradesh), then from Government Jubilee Inter College, Lucknow,
then from Ewing Christian College, Allahabad and finally from University of Allahabad. He
had two daughters with his wife, Pushpa.6

LEGAL CAREER

J.S.Verma Enrolled himself as the Pleader in the Vindhya Pradesh Judicial Commissioner's
Court, Rewa in January, 1955. He started his practice as an advocate in Madhya Pradesh High
Court in August, 1959. He practised in constitutional, civil, criminal, taxation and revenue
matters. He was appointed as the Additional Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court from
September 12, 1972 and Permanent Judge of the same High Court from June 2, 1973. He was
Company Judge in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh for several years and also the Chairman
of Advisory Boards constituted under the National Security Act and other preventive detention
laws. He headed the Administrative Committee of Madhya Pradesh High Court for several
years. He was appointed as the Acting Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court from 27
October 1985 and permanent Chief Justice from 14 June 1986. He was transferred as Chief
Justice from Madhya Pradesh High Court to Rajasthan High Court on September 1, 1986. He
had also been the Acting Governor of Rajasthan twice from 15 October 1987 to 20 February
1988 and from 3 February 1989 to 20 February 1989. He was appointed as the Judge of the
Supreme Court on 3 June 1989 and as Chief Justice of India on 25 March 1997. He retired on
18 January 1998.7

6
"Judges Biography:Jagdish Sharan Verma". Supreme Court of India. (Accessed on August 12, 2016
at 10:30 pm)
7
http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/judges/bio/jsverma.htm (Accessed on August 12, 2016 at 11:05
pm)

4
 MOST NOTICEABLE CASES

Justice J.S Verma has decided a lot of cases during his life as a judge. Some of his famous
Judgments are mentioned below:

• Kumari Shrileka Vidyarthi etc Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

• Smt. Nilabati Behera Vs. State of Orissa & Ors
• The Second Judges Case
• S.R Bommai v Union of India
• Vishaka Judgement
• AFSPA Judgment

1. Kumari Shrileka Vidyarthi etc Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

The State terminated the appointment of all Government counsel irrespective of whether the
term of the incumbent had expired or not. At the same time the Government directed
preparation of fresh panels to make appointments in the place of existing incumbents. The court
(20 September 1990) strongly asserted the requirement that every state action must not be
arbitrary even if that state action was in the field of contractual relations between the state and
individuals. Justice Verma stated that the basic requirement of Article 14 in the Constitution of
India is fairness in action by the State. It is difficult to accept that the State can be permitted to
act otherwise in any field of its activity, irrespective of the nature of its function. This
requirement must be satisfied by every action of the State or an instrumental body of the state
in order for it to be valid.8

8
"Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi Etc. ... vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 20 September, 1990".
Indiankanoon.org.(Accessed on August 13, 2016 at 8 pm)

5
2. Smt. Nilabati Behera Vs. State of Orissa & Ors

A mother of a 22-year-old man who had died in police custody wrote a letter to the Supreme
Court which the court treated as a writ petition. Rs 1.5 lakh compensation was awarded by the
Supreme Court to the mother, as Justice Verma held that compensation was a public law
remedy distinct from and in addition to the private law remedy in tort for damages (24 March
1993). Justice Verma stated that the award of compensation in a proceeding under Article 32
of the Constitution of India or by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
is a public law remedy which is based on strict liability for the breach of fundamental rights.

Justice Verma argued that the principle of sovereign immunity does not apply as a defence in
relation to compensation as a public law remedy even though it may be available as a defence
in private law action which based on tort. Justice Verma Stated that compensation is an
acknowledged constitutional remedy for enforcement and protection of fundamental rights.
The award of monetary compensation is a justifiable remedy when this is the only practical
method of redress available for contraventions of fundamental rights by the State or its servants
in purported exercise of its powers. The Supreme Court relied on Article 9 (5) of the ICCPR
as an additional ground in order to award compensation as a mode of enforcement of the
fundamental 'right to life' when no other mode of enforcement was available.9

3. The Second Judges Case

The Second Judges Case (Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association & Ors. v. Union
of India 3 October 1993) was the foundation for the collegium system for the appointment of
the judiciary in India. The court held that the executive and the judiciary are to reach their
decision together, given that both have a vital role in the joint venture. It is only if there is
irresolvable disagreement between them which cannot be resolved by joint effort that the Chief
Justice of India would have primacy. It was only in this situation that the question of primacy
should arise.

9
http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20999/volume-999-I-14668-English.pdf (Accessed on
August 13, 2016 at 8:30 pm)

6
This was on the basis that the opinion of the Chief Justice of India is the opinion of the Chief
Justice formed collectively after taking into account the views of his senior colleagues who are
required to be consulted by him.
In the First Judges Case (S. P Gupta & Ors v Union of India & Ors), the majority took the view
that the opinion of the judiciary does not have primacy in the matter of appointments of judges
of the Supreme Court and High Courts. The primacy is with the Central Government
(executive), which is to take the decision after consulting all the constitutional functionaries.
The Central Government (executive) is not bound to act in accordance with the opinion of all
the constitutional functionaries consulted even if their opinion is the same.
In the Second Judges case, the court felt that the approach in the First Judges case threatened
the principles of independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers with danger of the
politicisation of judicial appointments. The court also felt that this approach potentially
minimised the role of the judiciary in appointments when the judiciary would have best
knowledge of the legal calibre and acumen of potential appointees in comparison to the
executive.10

4. S.R Bommai v Union of India

This case (11 March 1994) related to a Presidential proclamation issued under Section 356 (1)
of the Emergency Provisions of Constitution of India dissolving the Karnataka Legislative
Assembly. Section 365 empowers the President of India, on his being satisfied that, "a situation
has arisen" in which the State Government 'cannot' be carried on in accordance with the
provisions of the Constitution, i.e., on the failure of the constitutional machinery, to take action.
This enables the State to come under the direct control of the Central Government.11

The court held that whilst it could review whether a proclamation which imposed President's
rule was ultra vires Article 356 the scope of such review would be limited. There was a narrow
area which was justicable by the court with deference awarded to the decision of the executive.

10
"Supreme Court ... vs Union Of India on 6 October, 1993". Indiankanoon.org. (Accessed on August 13, 2016
at 9 pm)

11
http:/ /www.indiankanoon.org/doc/897579/ (Accessed on August 13, 2016 at 9:30 pm)

7
This was on the basis that the exercise of the power of proclamation was a political one with a
wide area of discretion which would often involve a great deal of political judgment. It is
difficult to evolve judicially manageable norms on the basis of which to scrutinise decisions
which are often highly subjective and based on a wide array of socio-political and economic
factors. Justice Verma stated that only cases which permit application of totally objective
standards for deciding whether the constitutional machinery has failed are amenable to judicial
review and the remaining cases where there is any significant area of subjective satisfaction
are not justiciable because of a lack of judicially manageable standards for resolving the
controversy. The latter cases are subject only to political scrutiny i.e. through elections.

5. Vishaka Judgement

The Vishakha and others v State of Rajasthan (13 September 1997) is considered one of the
World's landmark judgments in gender justice. It was brought as a class action by certain
NGO's and social activists following the brutal gang rape of a social worker in Rajasthan to
enforce the fundamental rights of working women under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the
Constitution of India. The Supreme Court laid down guidelines to deal with the menace of
sexual harassment at the workplace through an approach based on equal access to the
workplace, prevention and empowerment. This landmark approach was the foundation for
much national and international best practice in dealing with sexual harassment at the
workplace.12

Justice Verma held that each incident of sexual harassment constitutes a violation of the
fundamental rights of 'gender equality', 'right to life and liberty' and the right to practice any
profession or to carry out any occupation, trade or business under Article 19 (1) (g) of the
Constitution of India which depends on a safe working environment. Vishaka v State of
Rajasthan is also a seminal and definitive judgment in the field of constitutional jurisprudence
and the relationship between international law and domestic law. The court held that in the

12
http://lawnn.com/case-law-vishakha-and-others-v-state-of-rajasthan-landmark-case/ (Accessed on August 13,
2016 at 10:00 pm)

8
absence of domestic legislation addressing this issue the court would rely on India's obligations
under international treaties and agreements to fill the gaps in the law. "Any International
Convention not inconsistent with fundamental rights and in harmony with its spirit must be
read into Articles 14, 15, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution to enlarge the meaning and
content thereof, to promote the object of the constitutional guarantee.”

6. AFSPA Judgment

Formally known as the Naga People's Movement vs Union of India (27 November 1997). The
Supreme Court of India in this case upheld the Constitutional validity of the Armed Forces
Special Powers Act which grants the armed forces special powers in "disturbed areas."
Concerns have been raised about the Act on the basis that it grants impunity for human rights
violations.

The Supreme Court of India in this case clearly stipulated that the following provisions must
be read into the AFSPA:

Ensure that troop under command do not harass innocent people, destroy property of the public
or unnecessarily enter into the house/dwelling of people not connected with any unlawful
activities. Ensure that women are not searched/arrested without the presence of female police.
In fact, women should be searched by female police only. Do not ill treat anyone, in particular
women and children, no harassment of civilians, no torture.

The Supreme Court held that: The instructions in the form of Do’s and Dont’s have to be treated
as binding instructions which are required to be followed by the members of the armed forces
exercising powers under the Central Act and a serious note should be taken of violation of the
instructions and the persons found responsible for such violations should be suitably punished
under the Army Act of 1950. The court also then pointed out that there are safeguards within
the powers exercisable under the Act. Parliament included these safeguards to check the
arbitrary exercise of power by the armed forces.

The Supreme Court went on to state that: "In order that the people may feel assured that there
is an effective check against misuse or abuse of powers by the members of the armed forces it
is necessary that a complaint containing an allegation about misuse or abuse of the powers

9
conferred under the Central Act should be thoroughly inquired into and, it is found that there
is substance in the allegation, the victim should be suitably compensated by the State and the
requisite sanction under Section 6 of the Central Act should be granted for institution of
prosecution and/or a civil suit or other proceedings against the person/persons responsible for
such violation.”13

POST RETIREMENT PUBLIC SERVICES

Right to Information
Justice Verma was a strong believer in the Right To Information. Observing the 52nd
anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Justice Verma said:
"In a democracy, participatory role in governments can be realised only if the right to
information exists so that the public can make an informed choice."
Justice Verma had also publicly stated that the judiciary should be brought within the ambit of
the Right to Information Act 2005: "To ensure transparency and accountability in public eye,
I strongly feel that judiciary should be brought into the ambit of Right to Information Act.
When hearing of all the cases is done publicly, decisions are pronounced publicly, the
administrative actions of the judiciary, especially judicial appointments should be made open
to public scrutiny," Justice Verma said.14
Justice Verma was one of the leading figures involved in the movement for the Right to
Information Act 2005 and in its implementation.
Justice Verma Committee
In the aftermath of the gang rape in Delhi, Justice Verma was appointed Chairperson of a three-
member commission tasked with reforming and invigorating anti-rape law. His committee
members were Ex-Solicitor General Gopal Subramanian and Justice (Retd.) Leila Seth. The
Committee was assisted by a team of young lawyers, law students and academics. The
Committee's counsel, Abhishek Tewari, Advocate was overall in charge of the preparation of

13
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1072165/ (Accessed on August 14, 2016 at 8 pm)

14
http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/jan/22rti.htm (Accessed on August 14, 2016 at 8:30 pm)

10
the report. He was assisted by Talha Abdul Rahman, Prof. Mrinal Satish, Shwetasree
Majumdar, Saumya Saxena, Preetika Mathur, Siddharth Peter de Souza, Anubha Kumar,
Apoorv Kurup, Devansh Mohta, Jigar Patel, Nikhil Mehra, Nishit Agrawal, Shyam Nandan,
Nithyaesh Natraj and Salman Hashmi.15

JUSTICE VERMA COMMITTEE REPORT

Justice Verma Committee was constituted to recommend amendments to the Criminal Law so
as to provide for quicker trial and enhanced punishment for criminals accused of committing
sexual assault against women.

Background: On December 23, 2012 a three member Committee headed by Justice J.S.
Verma, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, was constituted to recommend amendments
to the Criminal Law so as to provide for quicker trial and enhanced punishment for criminals
accused of committing sexual assault against women. The other members on the Committee
were Justice Leila Seth, former judge of the High Court and Gopal Subramanium, former
Solicitor General of India.

Rape: The Committee recommended that the gradation of sexual offences should be retained
in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
The Committee was of the view that rape and sexual assault are not merely crimes of passion
but an expression of power. Rape should be retained as a separate offence and it should not be
limited to penetration of the vagina, mouth or anus. Any non-consensual penetration of a
sexual nature should be included in the definition of rape.

Sexual assault: Currently, “assault or use of criminal force to a woman with the intent to
outrage her modesty” is punishable under Section 354 of the IPC with 2 years imprisonment.
The term outraging the modesty of a woman is not defined in the IPC. Thus, where penetration
cannot be proved, the offence is categorized as defined under Section 354 of the IPC.

15
"Justice J.S. Verma passes away". The Hindu. 22 April 2013. (Accessed on August 14, 2016 at 9 pm)

11
The Committee recommended that non-penetrative forms of sexual contact should be regarded
as sexual assault. The offence of sexual assault should be defined so as to include all forms of
non-consensual non-penetrative touching of a sexual nature. The sexual nature of an act should
be determined on the basis of the circumstances. Sexual gratification as a motive for the act
should not be prerequisite for proving the offence. The offence should be punishable with 5
years of imprisonment, or fine, or both.

Verbal sexual assault: At present, use of words or gestures to “insult a woman’s modesty” is
punishable with 1 year of imprisonment or fine or both under Section 509 of the IPC. This
section should be repealed. The Committee has suggested that use of words, acts or gestures
that create an unwelcome threat of a sexual nature should be termed as sexual assault and be
punishable for 1 year imprisonment or fine or both.

Acid attack: The Committee opined that the offence should not be clubbed under the
provisions of grievous hurt which is punishable with 7 years imprisonment under the IPC. It
noted that the offence was addressed in the Criminal Laws Amendment Bill, 2012 which is
currently pending in Parliament. The Bill prescribes a punishment of imprisonment for 10
years or life. It recommended that the central and state government create a corpus to
compensate victims of crimes against women.

Punishment for crimes against women: The Committee rejected the proposal for chemical
castration as it fails to treat the social foundations of rape. It opined that death penalty should
not be awarded for the offence of rape as there was considerable evidence that death penalty
was not a deterrence to serious crimes. It recommended life imprisonment for rape.

Medical examination of a rape victim: The Committee has recommended the discontinuation
of the two-finger test which is conducted to determine the laxity of the vaginal muscles. The
Supreme Court has through various judgments held that the two-finger test must not be
conducted and that the previous sexual experience of the victim should not be relied upon for
determining the consent or quality of consent given by the victim.

Police reforms: The Committee has recommended certain steps to reform the police. These
include establishment of State Security Commissions to ensure that state governments do not

12
exercise influence on the state police. Such Commissions should be headed by the Chief
Minister or the Home Minister of the state. The Commission would lay down broad policy
guidelines so that the Police acts according to the law. A Police Establishment Board should
be established to decide all transfers, postings and promotions of officers. Director General of
Police and Inspector General of Police should have a minimum tenure of 2 years.

Electoral reforms: The Committee recommended the amendment of the Representation of

People Act, 1951. Currently, the Act provides for disqualification of candidates for crimes
related to terrorism, untouchability, secularism, fairness of elections, sati and dowry. The
Committee was of the opinion that filing of charge sheet and cognizance by the Court was
sufficient for disqualification of a candidate under the Act. It further recommended that
candidates should be disqualified for committing sexual offences.

Education reforms: The Committee has recommended that children’s experiences should not
be gendered. It has recommended that sexuality education should be imparted to children.
Adult literacy programs are necessary for gender empowerment.16

CONCLUSION

Justice Verma is remembered for his legal innovation and firm commitment to women's
empowerment, accountability of judiciary and government, probity in public life, social justice
and secularism. He told fresh law graduates of WBNUJS while delivering the convocation
address, “Each one of you is that ‘little drop’ who can unite to make the ‘rain’ needed for the
‘monsoon of purity in national character’ to revive the parched field.” 17 Justice Verma is
considered to be one of the best Chief Justices of India.

His legacy is carried on by the Justice Verma Foundation, whose mission is ‘to make the law
a friend to those most in need of one.’ It focuses on providing quality pro bono representation
to those most in need of it in High Courts and the Supreme Court. It does this by acting as a
facilitator to match lawyers with clients in need.18Verma died from multiple organ failure on
april 22, 2013 at Medanta Hospital, Gurgaon at the age of 80. He was survived by his wife and
two daughters.19

16
http://www.prsindia.org/parliamenttrack/report-summaries/justice-verma-committee-report-summary-2628/
(Accessed on August 16, 2016 at 8 pm)
17
Verma, Jagdish S. (1 January 2009). "CONVOCATION ADDRESS" (PDF). NUJS Law Review. (Accessed
on August 16, 2016 at 8:30 pm)
18
http://www.justicevermafoundation.org (Accessed on August 16, 2016 at 9 pm)
19
"Justice JS Verma dies". The Times of India. 22 April 2013. (Accessed on August 16, 2016 at 9:30 pm)

13
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

WEB REFRENCES

1. “The Last Word - The Last Word: Remembering Justice JS Verma”. YouTube.
(Accessed on August 12, 2016 at 8 pm)
2. “Justice Verma, the face of judicial activism, dies of multiple organ failure”. Indian
Express. (Accessed on August 12, 2016 at 8:30 pm)
3. “A brave judge”. Indian Express. (Accessed on August 12, 2016 at 9 pm)
4. “Vishaka & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 13 August, 1997”. indiankanoon.org.
(Accessed on August 12, 2016 at 9:30 pm)
5. Karuna Nundy (2013-04-25). "Legacy of change through justice". The Hindu. (
Accessed on August 12, 2016 at 10 pm)
6. "Judges Biography:Jagdish Sharan Verma". Supreme Court of India. (Accessed on
August 12, 2016 at 10:30 pm)
7. 1 http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/judges/bio/jsverma.htm (Accessed on August 12,
2016 at 11:05 pm)
8. "Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi Etc. ... vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 20 September,
1990". Indiankanoon.org.(Accessed on August 13, 2016 at 8 pm)
9. http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20999/volume-999-I-14668-
English.pdf (Accessed on August 13, 2016 at 8:30 pm)
10. "Supreme Court ... vs Union Of India on 6 October, 1993". Indiankanoon.org.
(Accessed on August 13, 2016 at 9 pm)
11. http:/ /www.indiankanoon.org/doc/897579/ (Accessed on August 13, 2016 at 9:30
pm)
12. http://lawnn.com/case-law-vishakha-and-others-v-state-of-rajasthan-landmark-case/
(Accessed on August 13, 2016 at 10:00 pm)
13. http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1072165/ (Accessed on August 14, 2016 at 8 pm)
14. http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/jan/22rti.htm (Accessed on August 14, 2016 at 8:30
pm)
15. "Justice J.S. Verma passes away". The Hindu. 22 April 2013. (Accessed on August
14, 2016 at 9 pm)
16. http://www.prsindia.org/parliamenttrack/report-summaries/justice-verma-committee-
report-summary-2628/ (Accessed on August 16, 2016 at 8 pm)
17. Verma, Jagdish S. (1 January 2009). "CONVOCATION ADDRESS" (PDF). NUJS
Law Review. (Accessed on August 16, 2016 at 8:30 pm)
18. htttp://www.justicevermafoundation.org (Accessed on August 16, 2016 at 9 pm)
19. "Justice JS Verma dies". The Times of India. 22 April 2013. (Accessed on August 16,
2016 at 9:30 pm)

14