Born in Maharashtra in the district of Jalna on the 19th of July, 1960; Justice Virendrasingh Gyansingh Bisht received his bachelor’s degree in science from Nagpur University in 1982. He graduated with honors and received an LLB degree. With honors, he also earned a master’s degree in industrial relations and personal management. In October-November 1985, he became a lawyer.
He worked as a Registrar (Judicial) Nagpur Bench and Registrar (F & B) and judicial at Principal seat at Bombay High Court before joining Maharashtra Judicial Service as Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class and working as a joint Secretary of Law and Judiciary Department, Government of Maharashtra.[1] At Buldhana, Sangli, Thane, and the City Civil and Sessions Court in Mumbai, he served as a Principal District and Sessions Judge. On December 5, 2019, he was appointed to the Bombay High Court as a Judge.
According to a statement released by the Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, Justice VG Bisht, an Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court, has been appointed as a Judge of the Bombay High Court. Virendrasingh Gyansingh, Shri Justice On November 29, 1985, Bisht, B.Sc., LL.B., M.I.R.P.M. (Master of Industrial Relation and Personal Management), was admitted as an Advocate. On October 10, 1990, he joined the Judicial Service. He worked as a Judicial Officer in Maharashtra’s several courts. With effect from December 5, 2019, he was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court for a two-year term. On December 4, 2021, his term as an Additional Judge will come to an end.
Recently, a Bench led by Justice VG Bisht termed the issue of PIL before Bombay High Court seeks resumption of video call, voice call facilities in Maharashtra prisons an “important one” and called for a response from the Home Department of Maharashtra government. The Bombay High Court on Monday requested a response from the Maharashtra government’s Home Department in a public interest litigation petition Peoples Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra[2] seeking immediate steps to ensure that telephonic or electronic modes of communication are implemented in all prisons in the state.
CASES
- The 2008 Malegaon Blast Case
In a division bench comprising Justice VG Bisht, the Bombay High Court Demanded From Trial Court a Status Report Regarding the 2008 Malegaon Blast Case. The Malegaon 2008 bomb trial against BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur, Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit, and five others was ordered by the Bombay High Court to give a status report. The court further ordered the National Investigation Agency to provide an affidavit within two weeks listing the witnesses they have already questioned and those they still intend to question.
- Video Call Facility for Prison Inmates
The Bombay High Court questioned whether there had been a security breach in prison during the pandemic and ordered the state to respond in detail to a public interest lawsuit so that voice and video contact between inmates and their loved ones, friends, and attorneys may resume. On a PIL filed by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties, Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Virendra Singh Bisht inquired, “Was there any violation of security reported?” According to the PIL, the facility that had been authorised by the HC in July 2020 to enable detainees to communicate with their families was unexpectedly shut down after November 2021. It asked the authorities to develop electronic communication methods in accordance with the 2016 Model Prison Manual.
- Fraudulent Caste Certificates Case
The “wrong caste certificate” received by Amravati MP Navneet Kaur-Rana in 2013 and verified by the Caste Scrutiny Committee in 2017 was recently revoked and seized by the Bombay High Court, which stated that doing so may “deprive real and deserving citizens of advantages specified in the law.”
In addition to ordering Kaur-Rana to pay a fee of Rs. 2 lakhs to the Maharashtra Legal Services Authority within two weeks, the court warned her that “all the consequences in law provided upon cancellation of such a fraudulently obtained certificate shall follow.” The court asked Kaur-Rana to turn over the certificate to the Committee within six weeks.
The District Caste Scrutiny Committee, Mumbai, which certified the certificate in November 2017, was also criticised by the court, which stated that it “performed its work somewhat sloppily and shirked the responsibility put on it.”
[1] https://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/
[2] Peoples Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1255 OF 1999
Aishwarya Says:
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.
Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter Youtube and Instagram.
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 secondinnings.hr@gmail.com
In the year 2021, we wrote about 1000 Inspirational Women In India, in the year 2022, we would be featuring 5000 Start Up Stories.
Aishwarya Sandeep 
Leave a Reply