- Trending Categories
- Data Structure
- Operating System
- MS Excel
- C Programming
- Social Studies
- Fashion Studies
- Legal Studies
- Selected Reading
- UPSC IAS Exams Notes
- Developer's Best Practices
- Questions and Answers
- Effective Resume Writing
- HR Interview Questions
- Computer Glossary
- Who is Who
Madam Moham Punchhi Former Chief Justice of India
Justice Madam Moham Punchhi was born on October 10th, 1933. He is an Indian lawyer who subsequently became a judge. He served as CJI for less than a year. Justice Bharucha authored 142 decisions and was a part of 776 bench in his career at the Supreme Court. He died on June 17th, 2015 at the age of 81. He was preceded by Justice J. S. Verma and succeeded by Justice Adarsh Sein Anand.
Early Life and Education
Justice Punchhi was born in Punjab. He was raised in a well-known Hindu family. He had completed his Bachelor Degree of Law from the University of Delhi and started his legal career in 1955.
Justice Madam Moham Punchhi began his legal career during the following time period −
In 1955, he started his legal career as an attorney.
On 24 October 1979, he was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
On 16 December 1982, he was made a Permanent Judge.
On October 6, 1989, he was promoted to the position of Supreme Court Jsudge.
In 1998 he was appointed as Chief Justice of India.
|Name||Madam Moham Punchhi|
|Date of Birth||10th October, 1933|
|Alma Matar||Faculty of Law, University of Delhi|
|Official Tenure||18th January, 1998 – 9th October, 1998|
|President||K. R. Narayanan|
|Preceded||J. S. Verma|
|Succeeded||Adarsh Sein Anand|
Additional Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
Permanent Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
Judge of the Supreme Court
Chief Justice of India
The notable judgments are −
Life Insurance Corporation of India and Union of India (UOI) vs. Manubhai D. Shah and Cinemart Foundation (1993 AIR 171, 1992 SCR (3) 595)
According to the Supreme Court of India, freedom of expression includes the right to react to arguments against one's viewpoint. Each of the case's appeals make reference to distinct occasions in which a state-controlled organisation declined to print or broadcast content that opposed the administration. The Court argued that government-controlled media outlets have a stronger responsibility to acknowledge a person's right to self-defense, and if a State restricts material, it must justify its actions with legal justification.
Nelson Motis vs. Union of India (AIR 1992 SC 1981)
In the current case, The Court held that criminal and administrative actions are fundamentally distinct from one another and stand alone. So, it was decided that departmental inquiries would not necessarily be stopped just because a case was dismissed in court. Also, it maintained the 1965 Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Regulations' Rule 10(4)'s constitutional legality.
State of Tamil Nadu vs. State of Karnataka (1991 SCR (2) 501, 1991 SCC Supl. (1) 240)
The three-judge panel in the present case, determine whether the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, which was established under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, had the authority to give interim relief in the absence of any express language to that effect. The court responded positively and cited a Central Government decision to determine that the Government had meant to give the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal the authority to award temporary relief.
Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association vs. Union of India ((1993) 4 SCC 441)
In the present case, the scope of the Chief Justice's authority had to be determined by a 9-judge Supreme Court panel. When it came to the matter of appointing judges, Justice Puncchi wrote a dissenting opinion, despite the majority decision of 7 of the justices placing trust in the collegium system. He considered the Chief Justice to be in a special position with a high rank and stature. He said that, in accordance with Article 124, the President must personally contact the Chief Justice before making an appointment, but that consulting the other senior-most Supreme Court justices is optional.
Upon his retirement, he was chosen by the Indian government to serve as the chairman of the Punchhi commission, which was responsible for handling issues relating to Centre-State relations in India.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1. Who had appointed Justice Punchhi?
Ans. The former President K. R. Narayanan had appointed Justice Punchhi as the chief justice of India.
Q2. What is the primary function of governor?
Ans. According to Article 159 of the Indian Constitution, the governor's main responsibility is to uphold, defend, and safeguard the constitution and the law in the conduct of state business. Besides, time-to-time, he or she keeps updating about the respective state’s political, social, and economic condition to center.
Kickstart Your Career
Get certified by completing the courseGet Started