Skip to main content


This speech was delivered on 11.7.2013 in the farewell function of justice Ghulam Minhajuddin on his retirement. 
Justice Minhajuddin in Bar vs Bench festival match

My brothers, members of the Bar and Registry, ladies and gentlemen,

Jai Johar, Namaste, and a very good afternoon to all of you.

A reference—be it a welcome (ovation) or a condolence, or a farewell as the present one—is part of court's culture. It was earlier there in this court but was already stopped, when I joined here.  It was started again as it is a good tradition.  It is a step towards healthy Bar and Bench relationship. 

Nonetheless, TS Elliot said,
'A tradition without intelligence is not worth having. '
Mark Twain  is to the point when he observed,
'Often, the less there is to justify a traditional custom, the harder it is to get rid of it. '
And Aristotle rightly pointed out that-
'All persons ought to endeavour to follow what is right, and not what is established. '

Adherence to traditions without reason,  just because they are  established—is improper.  We must not make 'the role of history more important than it is'1.  What may be reasonable at some time should not generate that is unreasonable.

With mounting arrears, holding reference at the later rather earlier part of the day, is a better idea: the work does not suffer and reference is also held. And we have assembled here to do the same—to bid farewell to Brother Justice Ghulam Minhajuddin, who is demitting office today as a Judge of this High Court. 

Born on 12th July, 1951, Brother Minhajuddin joined the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service on 16.10.1981 and became a member of Higher Judicial Service on 6.6.1994.  He was Legal Advisor to the Governor of Chhattisgarh during 2004-2005.  He worked as Director of the Judicial Officers Training Institute, Bilaspur for more than four years from February 2007 till his elevation as Judge of Chhattisgarh High Court on 10th May, 2011. 

Unfortunately, I had the privilege of sitting with Brother Minhajuddin only for a day. But even in such a short time, I realised that he is a man of loving nature, cool temperament and soft-spoken. He not only possesses vast knowledge of law subjects but also of subjects of general importance. 

He was a keen sportsman and had represented the University of Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur in All India Inter Varsity (East Zone) Cricket Tournament. His team reached semi finals of the tournament. 

On behalf of my Brother judges and myself, I extend good wishes to Brother Minhajuddin and Madam Minhajuddin and wish them a happy as well as healthy life. 
Jai Hind. 


Popular posts from this blog


Two areas are close to my heart, namely uniform civil code and population control. I had drafted bills in late 1990's before I was  offered judgeship. The bills were distributed in the Parliament at that time but before they could be introduced (whether as a bill from the public or as a private member bill) the Parliament was dissolved. 
The Central government has asked the Law Commission to examine the issue of implementing the  Uniform Civil Code in detail and submit a report. I thought of publishing the bill relating to Uniform Civil Code that I had drafted.


Sometime ago, there were headlines in the newspaper 'Night Drama that did not succeed'. Here is the story of a night drama that succeeded. 
Kalyan Singh was the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh and Romesh Bhandari was the Governor. He,  illegally dismissed the Kalyan Singh Government on 21st February, 1998.  A writ petition was filed the smae night and he was reinstated. This is the only time that the a deposed head of a State was pput back in saddle by the court. Here is the account of the same. 
The writ petition at the Allahabad High Court was filed by Dr. NKS Gaur, an MLA from Allahabad North and Minister of Higher Education in UP, but for the sake of convenience, the case is referred as 'the Kalyan-Singh case'.  
During my tenure as a judge, it has been matter of speculation/ complaint how I became Additional Advocate General and why was this case entrusted to me. This is explained in Appendix-I to this article. In order to complete the picture, Romesh Bhandari's …


Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees right to the life and liberty. Right to move to the court to enforce Article 21 was suspended under Article 359 of the Constitution during internal emergency (1975-77). Soon a question arose if, in such a situation, a writ of Habeas Corpus is maintainable? ADM Jabalpur Vs Shiv Kant Shukla AIR 1976 SC 1207 : (1976)2 scc 521: 1976 UJ (SC) 610: 1976 Cr LR (SC) 303: 1976 CrL J 1945 (SC) (the Habeas Corpus case) dealt with this question. This article, written 20 years after the aforesaid case was decided, narrates about the incidents, lawyers and judges connected with that case and what has happened to them.
‘The time has come’ The Walrus said ‘To talk of many things:
Of shoes and ships and sealing wax-
Of cabbages - and kings-
And why the sea is boiling hot-
And whether pigs have wings’ Through the Looking Glass; Lewis Carroll