24TH CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
Justice Lalit Mohan Sharma was the 24th chief justice of India.His father Lal Narayan Sinha served as the country’s solicitor general (17 July 1972–5 April 1977) and Attorney General.
Lalit Mohan Sharma, Justice passed the Patna University B.A. Hons. in 1946. B.L. (Patna University) exam passed in 1948. In 1949, he enrolled as an articled clerk in the High Court of Patna. In 1950, he began working as an advocate in Patna’s High Court. In 1957, he registered as a Supreme Court advocate, and in 1958, he was appointed Senior Advocate. In 1973, he took his oath to serve as a Patna High Court judge. In 1987, he was chosen to be a Supreme Court justice. In 1992, he took over as India’s Chief Justice from M.H. Khania. In 1993, 13 months after his retirement. He wrote 157 decisions during his seven years as a Supreme Court judge and served on 406 benches.
Justice L. M. Sharma primarily handled matters involving Service law and constitutional law. He has also given opinions on criminal, tenancy, and property law.
- KIHOTO HOLLOHAN V. ZANCHILLHU & ORS
Paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection provision) of the Indian Constitution was declared illegal by a five-judge panel that included Justice L.M. Sharma. This clause’s removal of judicial review’s reach led the bench to deem it unconstitutional. The Bench did agree that judicial review cannot be used before a decision is made by a speaker because of their extensive decision-making authority. Justice L.M. Sharma disagreed with this opinion. According to him, the House majority’s continued support is necessary for the Speaker to have the power to resolve a disagreement under the Tenth schedule. In light of this, he disagreed with the Speaker’s assertion that he is an independent adjudicatory authority and believed that he cannot be in the House. Therefore, he disagreed with the Speaker’s status as an independent adjudicating authority and thought that the Speaker could not serve as the only arbiter in such situations.
- K VEERASWAMI V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
In K Veeraswami v. Union of Indian & Ors, the Court rendered a 4:1 decision declaring that Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, apply to judges of the High Court and Supreme Court as public workers. The judges further underlined that, by the terms of the 1947 Act, no FIR may be filed against a sitting Supreme Court judge without the consent of the appropriate authority.
- CHAND RANI(DEAD) BY LRs V. KAMAL RANI(DEAD) BBY LRs
A five-judge panel led by Chief Justice L.M. Sharma decided that there is no assumption that time is of the essence in a contract for the sale of immovable property in Chand Rani (dead) by LRs v. Kamal Rani (dead) by LRs. Though the conditions are from the specific terms of the contract; from the nature of the property and the surrounding circumstances; even if time is not of the essence, the court may infer that it is to be executed in a reasonable amount of time.
- MOHAN PANDEY & ORS V. USHA RANI RAJGARIA & ORS
Justice L.M. Sharma ruled in Mohan Pandey & Ors v. Usha Rani Rajgaria & Ors that the High Court cannot permit constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 to be used to resolve disputes for which general law remedies, civil or criminal, are available. As a result, the petition for the enforcement of a private right to real property under Article 226 was denied.
In 2008, Justice L.M. Sharma passed away following a long-term illness. He was 80 years old. He is survived by his wife, son, and daughter.
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