Harjit Singh Bedi is a former Supreme Court of India judge who was born on September 5, 1946. Harjit Singh Bedi originates from a farming family in Sahiwal (previously Montgomery), Pakistan. He is number 17 in the direct line of Guru Nanak’s descendants. His family relocated to Fazilka, a small township near the India-Pakistan border, after the partition. Tikka Jagjit Singh Bedi, his father, was a judge who retired from the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 1969.
In 1983, Bedi was named Deputy Advocate General for Punjab, and in 1987, he was promoted to Senior Advocate. He was promoted once more to Additional Advocate General, where he remained until 1989, when he was appointed Advocate General. He was the Advocate General of Punjab for roughly a year, until 1990.
On March 15, 1991, he was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and on July 8, 1992, he was appointed as a permanent Judge. On 3 October 2006, he was named Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. Governor SM Krishna swore in Justice Harjeet Singh Bedi as the 36th Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. Several luminaries, including former Chief Justice of India YV Chandrachud, Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh, Chhagan Bhujbal, Director General of Police PS Pasricha, and Police Commissioner AN Roy, were present at the ceremony. Since Justice Kshitij Vyas departed on July 18, the HC has been without a Chief Justice. In the meantime, Interim Chief Justice VG Palshikar has been appointed.
The Supreme Court collegium is said to have recommended Mr Justice Harjit Singh Bedi, the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, for elevation as a Supreme Court Judge. On 12 January 2007, he was appointed to the Supreme Court of India as a Judge. He left the company in 2011.
His appointment as a Supreme Court Judge could be cleared as early as mid-December, allowing him to take the oath before the supreme court closes for the winter break, according to sources. Mr Justice Ashok Bhan, a former judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, is now a Supreme Court Judge. Mr Justice Bhan was appointed to the Supreme Court on June 17, 2001, and will retire in October of this year. Apart from Mr Justice Bedi, sources said the names of Chief Justice Vikas Sridhar Sirpurkar of the Calcutta High Court and Chief Justice Buchireddy Sudershan Reddy of the Guwahati High Court have also been cleared for elevation to the Supreme Court.
Mr Justice Bedi is a well-known judge who made a name for himself by resolving cases quickly. He remained Advocate-General of Punjab and was promoted to Senior Advocate in 1987, a position he relinquished on March 15, 1991, to become an Additional Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. On July 8, 1992, he was designated as its permanent Judge. Mr Justice Bedi garnered praise as Executive Chairman of the Punjab State Legal Services Authority for his initiatives, many of which resulted in the swift resolution of thousands of pending cases at lok adalats. Justice Tikka Jagjit Singh Bedi, his father, was also a judge in the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Some of the Popular Judgments of Justice Harjit Singh Bedi are –
1.) Sanjay Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 8 February, 2012
Due to the disagreement between the two judges, the case was sent to a three-judge panel headed over by Justice Harjit Singh Bedi. This court agreed with Justice Ganguli’s recommendation that the appellant’s death sentence be replaced with a life sentence of imprisonment.
2.) Ramesh vs State Of Haryana on 21 October, 2010
The appellants herein assembled in the residence of Joragir, differently armed with pistol, gun, lathis, gandasa, and bricks, and the appellants were participants of the unlawful assembly and caused the death of Krishan in furtherance of their common aim, according to the evidence. With the exception of Teka, Lachhman, Chander Bhan, and Ramphal, the High Court upheld the appellants’ convictions. The High Court found that defendants Chander Bhan and Lachhman, as well as the other two convicts, had been wrongfully implicated in the case after reviewing the evidence.
In regards to the acquittal of respondents Chander Bhan and Lachhman, the High Court determined that they were falsely ensnared after reviewing the evidence. On the basis of the evidence, the aforementioned conclusion was reached. The High Court’s position, in our opinion, is one of the feasible positions, and as such, the order of acquittal requires no interference by this Court.
3.) Girdhari vs State(Govt.Nct Of Delhi) on 14 July, 2011
Six people have been charged with two counts of murder in connection with the kidnapping and deaths of Kalu Ram Bhagat and Bodhan. The trial judge freed Ram Karan, who is suspected of hiring the other defendants to perpetrate the killings, and acquitted Ramesh, Birju, and Dharam Pal on the grounds that none of the witnesses could identify them. Girdhari and Man Singh, on the other hand, were found guilty and sentenced to life in prison on two charges as well as under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code, all of which will run concurrently. The matter was then brought before the High Court in two separate appeals, with the impugned judgement dated 4th February 2009 allowing Man Singh’s appeal and acquitting him, while Girdhari appellant was acquitted of the murder of Bodhan but his Crl.A. No. 1423 of 2010 conviction for the murder of Kalu Ram Bhagat was affirmed. Girdhari filed the current appeal on his own.
4.) M/S. Hotel Alakananda & Anr vs Commercial Tax Officer & Ors on 23 April, 2009
Two questions arise in this batch of Civil Appeals: whether Section 7(b) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short “1963 Act”), which was enacted on October 24, 2006 with retroactive effect on January 1, 2007, could be applied to those dealers who had contracted for payment of turnover tax at the compounded rate under the alternate method of taxation provided for under the unamended Section 7 for the assessment year 2006-07? The second, and more essential, point is whether Sections 7(a) and 7(b) operate in separate spheres, and if not, whether the altered provision breaches Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, as claimed in the writ case.
5.) Kumaravel vs State Of Inspector Of Police on 23 July, 2009
This appeal was brought on the accused’s behalf against concurrent orders of conviction under Section 302 of the IPC, which included a punishment of life imprisonment, a fine of Rs.5000/-, and a two-year R.I. if the accused did not appear.
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at email@example.com