Tag Archives: Justice S. Abdul Nazeer – Supreme Court of India

Justice Nazeer started his life’s journey in tough circumstances in Karnataka

Mangaluru, KARNATAKA:

The new Governor of Andhra Pradesh has once said ‘he has lived a dream’

File photo of retired Supreme Court judge Justice Abdul Nazeer. | Photo Credit: Sandeep Saxena

Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, retired Supreme Court judge and the new Governor of Andhra Pradesh, once said “he has lived a dream”.

The man whose face, Supreme Court lawyers say, breaks into a “million dollar smile” before dismissing their cases, started his life’s journey in singularly tough circumstances in Karnataka’s Beluvai and later in Mangaluru.

Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud narrated how a young Nazeer worked in his uncle’s farms to make ends meet. During those bleak early years, he would scavenge for fish which washed up ashore at the Panambur beach to supplement his family’s income.

Justice Nazeer was born in 1958 into a family of several brothers and a sister. His father died early. He has often spoken about the sacrifices of his mother for the family. Justice Nazeer completed his graduation in Commerce and obtained a law degree from SDM Law College in Mangaluru. He was the family’s first lawyer. He moved to Bengaluru, overcame his natural shyness and “difficulty with the English language” to set up a substantial practice in tax and civil laws.

‘Duck syndrome’

He compared his early years as a lawyer to the “duck syndrome”. “I was like a duck who is seen gliding smoothly on the water, but is actually paddling furiously under the water just to keep itself afloat,” Justice Nazeer said at his farewell from the Supreme Court.

Justice Nazeer was elevated to the Karnataka High Court Bench at the early age of 45, largely owing to the recommendation of Justice R.V. Raveendran, the senior-most local judge of the High Court at the time. He spent 14 years at the High Court before his appointment as a Supreme Court judge on the proposal of a Collegium led by then Chief Justice of India J.S. Khehar in 2017.

Justice Nazeer was not even a Chief Justice of a High Court when he was elevated to the Supreme Court. He was in fact the fourth senior-most among minority community judges of the High Courts.

His tenure gave him opportunities, one after other, to be in the thick of almost every momentous decision of the apex court.

He supported Chief Justice Khehar’s minority view to uphold triple talaq while the majority on the Constitution Bench struck it down. He was part of the nine-judge Bench which upheld privacy as a fundamental right.

Then came his role as the sole minority judge on the Ayodhya Bench, which gave the title of the disputed Ramjanmabhoomi to the Hindus. Senior advocate Vikas Singh said the unanimous Ayodhya judgment showed Justice Nazeer had “placed the nation first, him as a judge second and him as an individual last”.

On Justice Nazeer’s last working day, Chief Justice Chandrachud, who was also part of the Ayodhya Bench, said “Justice Nazeer was not the one who would be neutral between right and wrong but he stood for what is right. We shared the Ayodhya Bench and we worked together and delivered a decision together”.

His last few days as apex court judge saw a Constitution Bench presided by Justice Nazeer uphold the government’s 2016 demonetisation policy as flawless.

Justice Nazeer is also remembered for his speech at the National Council meeting of the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad in Hyderabad in December 2021, highlighting the need to chuck the colonial legal system detrimental to national interest and embrace the “great legal traditions as per Manu, Kautilya, Katyayana, Brihaspati, Narada, Parashara, Yajnavalkya and other legal giants of ancient India”.

Justice Nazeer is known for his fondness for theatre. He writes dialogues and composes songs for his dramas. He is also well known for his Tulu songs. Justice Nazeer has learnt Sanskrit. Chief Justice Chandrachud credits this endeavour to his “diversity, inclusion and openness of mind”.

source: http://www.thehindu.com / The Hindu / Home> News> India / by Krishnadas Rajagopal / February 13th, 2023

Justice Nazeer dissents: Four key questions, larger bench is needed in Ayodhya case

Beluvai (near Moodbidri) KARNATAKA / NEW DELHI  :

Justice Nazeer said that considering the “Constitutional importance” and “significance” of the issue, the Ram Janmabhoomi land dispute case should be referred to a larger bench.

The majority verdict by other members of the bench, comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Ashok Bhushan, said that this observation was made in the context of land acquisition.
The majority verdict by other members of the bench, comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Ashok Bhushan, said that this observation was made in the context of land acquisition.

The observation in the 1994 Ismail Faruqui case that a mosque is not an essential part of Islam and namaz by Muslims can be offered anywhere, “even in open” was arrived at “without undertaking a comprehensive examination,” Supreme Court judge Justice S Abdul Nazeer said Thursday.

The majority verdict by other members of the bench, comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Ashok Bhushan, said that this observation was made in the context of land acquisition.

Disagreeing with this in his 42-page dissenting judgment, Justice Nazeer said that considering the “Constitutional importance” and “significance” of the issue, the Ram Janmabhoomi land dispute case should be referred to a larger bench.

Justice Nazeer referred to the Srirur Mutt case which had observed that “what constitutes the essential part of a religion is primarily to be ascertained with reference to the doctrines of that religion itself”. Ismail Faruqui needs to be brought in line with the “authoritative pronouncements in Shirur Mutt,” he said.

Justice Nazeer posed four key questions.

First, whether in the light of Shirur Mutt, “an essential practice can be decided without a detailed examination of the beliefs, tenets and practice of the faith in question” ; second, whether the test for determining the essential practice is both essentiality and integrality; third, does Article 25 (Freedom of conscience, practice and propagation of religion), “only protect belief and practices of particular significance of a faith or all practices regarded by the faith as essential” ; fourth, do Articles 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth), 25 and 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs) read with Article 14 (right to equality) “allow the comparative significance of faiths to be undertaken”.

Justice Nazeer also referred to a string of rulings on similar issues that have been referred to a larger bench: a three-judge bench of the SC has referred the matter relating to polygamy including Nikah Halala, Nikha Mutah, and Nikah Misya to a Constitution Bench; a two-judge Bench had has referred the matter in relation to the policy decision permitting Ram Leela and Puja once in a year in public parks to a Constitution Bench; and, most recently, a three-judge bench considering the question relating to banning the practice of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) has referred the matter to a larger bench.

The issue of referring the observation of 1994 verdict had cropped up when the three-judge bench headed by the CJI was hearing the batch of appeals filed against the Allahabad High Court’s 2010 verdict by which the disputed land on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid area was divided into three parts.

Justice Nazeer said that this 2010 verdict has been “expressly and inherently” affected by the questionable observations made in Ismail Faruqui case.

The issue of referring the observation of 1994 verdict had cropped up when the three-judge bench headed by the CJI was hearing the batch of appeals filed against the Allahabad High Court’s 2010 verdict by which the disputed land on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid area was divided into three parts.

A three-judge bench of the high court, in a 2:1 majority ruling of 2010, had ordered that the 2.77 acres be partitioned equally among three parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla, the deity.

source: http://www.indianexpress.com / The Indian Express / Home> India / by Kaunain Sheriff M / New Delhi / September 28th, 2018

HC judge elevated to Supreme court

Beluvai (near Moodbidri) / Bengaluru, KARNATAKA :

It was a proud moment for the Karnataka High Court as two of its judges were elevated to the Supreme Court.

Bengaluru :

It was a proud moment for the Karnataka High Court as two of its judges were elevated to the Supreme Court. In a rare instance, one of the judges has been elevated even before becoming the chief justice of a high court.

Chief Justice Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, Justice S Abdul Nazeer (right) after a farewell programme at the High Court on Thursday | Vinod Kumar T
Chief Justice Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, Justice S Abdul Nazeer (right) after a farewell programme at the High Court on Thursday | Vinod Kumar T

The elevated judges are Justice S Abdul Nazeer from the Karnataka High Court and Justice Mohan M Shantanagoudar, who was recently transferred from Karnataka High Court as chief justice of Kerala High Court. They will be sworn in as judges of the Supreme Court on Friday. Both the Judges will have a six-year tenure in the apex court.
Justice Nazeer is perhaps the third judge elevated directly to apex court before becoming the chief justice of a high court.
Earlier, Justice S Rajendra Babu, former Chief Justice of India and Justice N Venkatachala, former Lokayukta were elevated directly as judges of the Supreme Court from the Karnataka High Court.
“I have become emotional.. the reason is my elevation to the apex court and also heading towards Delhi, leaving all the legal fraternity of the state. The real power of courts lie in the trust and confidence reposed by the people and the power vested with them to decide or punish the guilty. Continuing efforts are needed by the bar and bench to keep the faith of people in judiciary,” Justice Nazeer said, while thanking his mother for “raising him to this level despite poverty.”
A warm farewell was given to Justice Nazeer by both the Bar and bench on Thursday. His elevation was described as a proud moment for the Karnataka High Court by those who were on the dais as well as those who were in attendance.

source: http://www.newindianexpress.com / The New Indian Express / Home> Cities> Bengaluru / by Express News Service / February 17th, 2017