Kiran Raj

Justice Abhay S Oka received a heartfelt farewell from members of the Supreme Court Bar on his last working day. Despite the recent passing of his mother just a day prior, he arrived at court and delivered ten judgments before demitting office. Lawyers in the courtroom expressed their appreciation for his service and acknowledged his courage in confronting injustice. A ceremonial bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai was convened to honour Justice Oka’s contributions to the judiciary.

Attorney General for India R Venkataramani said that Justice Oka consistently upheld liberty and the freedom of speech through his judgments. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta remarked that Justice Oka always prioritised his duty. He added, “Though your lordships may not believe in God, I am a believer. May God always be by your side. You were a judge who took a stand. I and Mr. Raju were often on the wrong side, but that never diminished our respect for you.”

Also Read: "An Offence Against the Very Integrity, Sovereignty, and Security of Bharat": Delhi High Court Rejects Bail in Espionage Conspiracy Involving Classified Military Documents

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal described Justice Oka as a guardian of liberty, comparing his legacy to that of Justice Khanna and Justice Patanjali Shastri. Dr. A.M. Singhvi noted the openness of his court, likening its proceedings to the flow of water. ASG SV Raju said that although many of his arguments were not accepted, he never felt the decisions were unfair, as they were grounded in justice. Gopal Sankaranarayanan likened Justice Oka to an oak tree, firm and unshakable. Menaka Guruswamy thanked him for his orders that improved Delhi’s environment.

Several other senior advocates, including Meenakshi Arora, Shadan Farasat, Madhavi Divan, Guru Krishnakumar, CU Singh, Sidharth Luthra, Aparajita Singh, Shekhar Naphade, Amit Anand Tiwari, Rahul Kaushik, PV Dinesh, and Mukul Rohatgi, also offered their tributes.

CJI BR Gavai called Justice Oka an outstanding judge and extraordinary colleague. He mentioned how Justice Oka returned to duty a day after his mother’s death, and had previously done the same when his father passed away, taking only one day off. He shared that both of them had decided not to take up any post-retirement appointments, joking that they might now work together after his own retirement. He described Justice Oka as a professor of law and ethics in the courtroom and recalled how he never took official accommodation after becoming a judge. The CJI also acknowledged Justice Oka’s role in establishing the National Law University at Aurangabad.

In his farewell remarks, Justice Oka lightened the mood by saying, “Today is the first and last day of my judicial career where I have not stopped lawyers from speaking,” prompting laughter in the courtroom. He said the Supreme Court must continue to uphold constitutional liberties, as envisioned by the framers. “It was my honest endeavour to do that,” he said, acknowledging that in doing so, he may have offended some. “A judge should be firm, strict, and should not hesitate to offend anyone,” he added, recalling advice given to him early in his career that popularity should never be a judge’s goal. “I was harsh for only one reason—I wanted to uphold the principles laid down by our Constitution.”

Justice Oka began his legal practice at the Bombay High Court in 1983. He was appointed a judge there on August 29, 2003, served as Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court from May 2019, and was elevated to the Supreme Court on August 31, 2021.

He used the farewell occasion to reflect on judicial reforms. He pointed to the Chief Justice-centric functioning of the Supreme Court and said it needed to evolve towards a more democratic model, akin to High Courts where administrative committees guide decision-making. He said the current structure does not reflect the collective strength of a 34-judge institution. He hoped that under the new Chief Justice, such change would be visible.

On case listing practices, he criticised the inconsistency in listing urgent matters and advocated for a fixed roster system like in High Courts, where automatic allocation reduces discretion. He shared how, during the pandemic in Karnataka, he worked with Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Aravind Kumar to implement an auto-listing system that addressed the issue of selective listing.

He said that case listing cannot be improved without minimising manual intervention. “We have AI technology, software, and other tools that can make listings more rational. The Supreme Court is not just a constitutional court—it is also an appellate court. Appeals from the common man come here, and the system must serve them better,” he said.

He reflected on his retirement not as freedom gained but freedom lost. “True freedom to do justice lies in being a judge,” he said. Having spent 21 years and 9 months as a judge in constitutional courts, he described judgeship as a way of life. “Judgeship becomes life and life is judgeship,” he said, admitting he now faced the challenge of discovering what lay beyond.

He said the sacrifices in a judge’s life are not made by the judge but by the family. He acknowledged his wife Anuja’s unwavering support and said she made the greatest sacrifice. He recalled how his father, a well-regarded civil lawyer, quit practice and stayed away from court premises following his elevation. He shared, with humour, that his sons had given him peace of mind by choosing not to enter the legal profession.

Justice Oka spoke of the early days of his career, beginning in Athani’s District Court on June 28, 1983. He credited Justice Srikrishna for early support, allowing him to share chambers before he became a judge. His years in the Bombay High Court allowed him to work across jurisdictions under several Chief Justices.

As Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, he ensured he sat with each judge by seniority during the pandemic. He recalled his first day in Karnataka, where he almost sat in the wrong chair because court conventions placed senior judges on the left rather than the right, as in other courts. “Justice PS Yash Kumar corrected me,” he said.

He explained his decision to avoid media interviews before retirement, noting that a two- to three-month cooling-off period was necessary due to the emotions involved.

He addressed the neglect of trial and district courts, calling them the backbone of the justice system and stressing that they serve the common citizen. He supported the committee formed by the Chief Justice to prepare an action plan for reducing pendency in these courts, where some cases have been pending for up to 40 years. He opposed the use of the term “subordinate courts,” saying it contradicts constitutional values.

He also drew attention to criminal appeals pending in High Courts, some for over two decades. He said that while attention is given to convicts in jail, appeals involving those on bail also deserve timely resolution, as it is unjust to send someone to prison after enjoying liberty for 20 years. He cited partition suits and other civil disputes that span decades, stating this denies justice to ordinary citizens.

He said the Supreme Court should broaden its focus beyond itself and look to the needs of common litigants and trial courts. He appreciated the efforts of recently retired Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna in promoting transparency through collaborative decision-making. He also spoke warmly of current Chief Justice Bhushan Gavai. “Justice Bhushan Gavai has democratic values in his blood,” he said, recalling the late Justice Gavai’s father, who served as the Chairperson of the Maharashtra Legislative Council and was widely respected for his democratic outlook.

Justice Oka concluded his farewell with a call for a judiciary that is principled, transparent, and rooted in the values of the Constitution.

Justice Abhay S Oka’s Judicial Record: A Legacy of Integrity, Constitutional Fidelity, and Judicial Discipline

Justice Abhay S Oka concluded his tenure at the Supreme Court with a record that reflects a firm commitment to constitutional values, protection of civil liberties, and strengthening judicial integrity. Known for his clear, direct judgments, consistent advocacy for personal liberty, and firm stance against executive overreach, Justice Oka has been widely recognised for his significant contributions across diverse legal domains.

From his tenure at the Bombay High Court to his time as Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court and finally as a Supreme Court judge since August 2021, Justice Oka has consistently upheld individual freedoms, democratic principles, and the rule of law. His judicial approach was marked by minimal verbosity, direct reasoning, and accessibility of language, making the law understandable to the common citizen.

Justice Oka's judgments have often served as critical correctives to executive excesses and unconstitutional state action. In Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra, he quashed criminal cases against a professor prosecuted for sharing WhatsApp statuses critical of the abrogation of Article 370 and extending Independence Day greetings to Pakistan. The judgment stated, “Democracy will not survive if every criticism is seen as an offence,” and clarified that wishing another country's citizens on their national day was not a crime. Importantly, it also noted that attributing motives based solely on religion violates the spirit of the Constitution.

In Imran Pratapgarhi, Justice Oka nullified an FIR against a Rajya Sabha MP for sharing a poem, with the Court observing that the poem conveyed a message of non-violence. The judgment criticised the invocation of criminal law over speech and reminded police of their duty to protect constitutional rights. It also mandated that FIRs concerning speech-related offences should only be registered after a preliminary inquiry by a senior officer.

Justice Oka repeatedly asserted the importance of protecting personal liberty. In Parvinder Singh Khurana v. Directorate of Enforcement, he disapproved of the High Courts' practice of casually staying bail orders. In Jalaluddin Khan, his judgment reiterated that bail remains the rule even under special statutes such as the UAPA. He also held that ideological beliefs alone cannot justify incarceration.

As concerns about the functioning of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) grew, Justice Oka authored several significant decisions refining the application of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). In Pavana Dibbur, he ruled that PMLA cannot be invoked for criminal conspiracy charges when the underlying offence is not scheduled. In Tarsem Lal, the Court held that ED cannot arrest a person after cognizance is taken by a Special Court, and that such an accused is not subject to the twin bail conditions under Section 45. Other notable rulings include Bibhu Prasad Acharya, which held that sanction is required before prosecuting a public servant under PMLA, and Sarla Gupta, which affirmed the accused's right to access unrelied documents filed by the ED. A more recent order granted the accused the right to a pre-cognizance hearing under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

Justice Oka openly questioned the ED’s low conviction rate and its tendency to arrest based on allegations without evidence. He stated during a hearing, “The concept of PMLA cannot be to ensure that a person should remain in jail indefinitely.”

In Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya v. District Development Officer Dahod, Justice Oka ruled that Anganwadi workers are entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, recognising their role in implementing vital welfare legislation such as the National Food Security Act and the Right to Education Act.

In response to the Muzaffarnagar school slapping incident, Justice Oka criticised the police’s inadequate FIR and directed the state to bear the victim-child’s educational expenses. In Zulfiquar Haider, he ordered interim compensation of ₹10 lakh each to six families whose homes were demolished by the Uttar Pradesh government.

Environmental protection was another domain where Justice Oka’s bench passed landmark orders. In Vanshakti, he quashed government notifications granting post-facto environmental clearances. His judgment annulled a Centre notification exempting linear projects from prior clearance requirements. In the MC Mehta pollution matter, he directed urgent interventions to curb air pollution in Delhi-NCR and observed, “No religion encourages any activity which creates pollution,” while imposing a firecracker ban. At the same time, his orders protected labourers affected by suspension of construction work.

In a matter concerning unauthorised tree felling in Delhi’s ridge forest, Justice Oka’s bench found that the order was given by the Lieutenant Governor himself, who chaired the Delhi Development Authority. The finding nearly led to contempt proceedings against the LG before the matter was transferred.

Justice Oka took a strong stance on judicial discipline. In In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescent, he set aside remarks by the Calcutta High Court on teenage relationships, stating that judges are not to moral police or express personal views. His rulings reinforced procedural fairness, holding that retired judges cannot retain files to deliver judgments and that High Courts must issue notice before recalling orders.

In Jitender @ Kalla, he dealt with misconduct by a Senior Advocate, leading to the reconsideration of norms for designating senior counsel. The judgment held that trial and tribunal lawyers should also be considered for senior designation, and clarified that Advocates-on-Record are accountable for any false statements made in court.

Justice Oka’s bench initiated contempt proceedings against bar associations calling for court boycotts. During proceedings related to the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) boycott in Visakhapatnam, he discovered that Finance Ministry had diverted DRT staff to non-judicial roles. His intervention led to withdrawal of that practice.

Also Read: Supreme Court : Domestic Violence Act Complaints Can Be Quashed By High Courts Under Section 482 CrPC Or 528 BNSS | Inherent Powers Exist But Must Be Exercised With Caution

Noting the backlog of over 7 lakh criminal appeals in High Courts, Justice Oka urged timely appointments and faster processing of Collegium recommendations. His bench also issued practice directions to reduce delays in listing criminal appeals. He frequently pointed to the erosion of public confidence in the judiciary and urged introspection.

In Wikimedia Foundation v. ANI Media, his bench stated that courts should not control media content or dictate deletions. He also opposed religious rituals such as poojas in court functions, suggesting that the only acceptable ritual is bowing to the Constitution.

Justice Oka’s judgments stood as a safeguard against systemic collapse and judicial silence in the face of rising majoritarianism. He maintained his independence with courage and clarity, offering constitutional fidelity when it was most needed. His retirement comes at a time when such voices are few, and his presence on the bench will be deeply missed. His legacy offers a blueprint for principled, people-centric, and constitutionally anchored judicial conduct.