J. S. Verma

Jagdish Sharan Verma (18 January 1933 – 22 April 2013) was an Indian jurist who served as the 27th Chief Justice of India from 25 March 1997 to 18 January 1998.

A petition was filed by a former high court chief justice in the Supreme Court arguing that he could not be proceeded against under the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1947.

This was on the basis that he was not a public servant for the purposes of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The majority of the Supreme Court held that a former Chief Justice of the High Court of Madras could be proceeded against under the Act.

This was on the basis that a judge belonging to the higher judiciary was a public servant for the purposes of the Act.

Justice Verma dissented saying that Parliament had not intended a member of the higher judiciary to be designated a 'public servant' for the purposes of the Prevention of Corruption Act as amended.

Justice Verma recognised the need for an appropriate mechanism to deal with corruption by members of the higher judiciary but stated that the difference is between the law as it is and the law as it should be.

He said that "judicial activism can supply the deficiencies and fill gaps in an already existing structure found deficient in some ways, but it must stop short of building a new edifice where there is none."

The majority position would also prove problematic to the principles of independence of the judiciary and the constitutional scheme of the hierarchy of the courts.

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.

A 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.

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 based on tort.

Verma began his legal career in 1955, and enrolled as an advocate in the Madhya Pradesh High Court in August 1959.

He was appointed the judge there in June 1972.

In the following year, he delivered a judgement arguing that a juvenile convicted of murder ought to be tried under separate procedures from an adult.

He became Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court in June 1985 and also served as Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court from September 1986 until his elevation to the Supreme Court in June 1989.

This went on to form the basis for the Juvenile Justice Act in 1986.

After the declaration of state of emergency in India, he was one of the first judges to reject the government's proclamation that emergency took precedence over rights to life and liberty.

Before the Supreme Court stopped High Courts from entertaining habeas corpus petitions, Verma "stood out" as one of the few high court judges who released detainees arrested under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act.

He acted as the Governor of Rajasthan twice between 1986 and 1989.

In June 1989, he was appointed Judge of the Supreme Court of India, and became Chief Justice of India in January 1998.

During his time in the Supreme Court, Justice Verma gave numerous landmark judgments.

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 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.

He was the chairman of the 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 in its history.

He was known for his judicial innovation through landmark judgements, which made him "the face of judicial activism" in India.

His decisions were credited with the forging of powerful new judicial tools such as continuing mandamus, and the expanded protection of fundamental rights as in the Vishaka Judgement.

Alongside judicial activism and fundamental rights protection, he was strongly associated with women's empowerment, probity in public life, judicial accountability, as well as enhancing social justice.

Jagdish Sharan Verma was born in a Kayastha Family in Satna, Madhya Pradesh.

He had six brothers and three sisters.

He completed his early education at Venkat High School in Satna (Govt. Venkat H.S. Excellence School No.1, Satna), followed by Government Jubilee Intercollege, Lucknow.

He graduated from the University of Allahabad with a B.Sc.

and LL.B.

He had two daughters with his wife, Pushpa.