->Snickers2686: Removing template

2021-09-07T02:54:12Z

Removing template

New page

{{EngvarB|date=September 2014}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=September 2014}}
{{short description|Former Judge of Supreme Court of India}}
{{Infobox officeholder
| honorific-prefix = Hon'ble Justice (Retd.)
| name = Rohinton Fali Nariman
| birth_date = {{Birth date and age|df=y|1956|08|13}}<ref>[http://www.pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=73523 Press Bureau of India : Shri Rohinton Fali Nariman Appointed as Solicitor General of India] Last Retrieved on 4 February 2013.</ref>
| birth place = [[Bombay]], [[Bombay State]], <br> (now [[Mumbai]], [[Maharashtra]], [[India]]
| native_name =
| native_name_lang =
| honorific-suffix =
| image = [[File:Justice_R.F._Nariman.jpg|220px]]
| imagesize =
| smallimage = 
| alt =
| caption =
| appointer = [[Pranab Mukherjee]]
| nominator = [[Rajendra Mal Lodha]]
| order =
| office = [[Judge]] of [[Supreme Court of India]]
| term_start = 7 July 2014
| term_end = 12 August 2021
| alma_mater = [[University of Delhi]] ([[LLB]])<br>[[Harvard Law School]] ([[LLM]])
| profession =
| relations =
| father = [[Fali Sam Nariman]]
| spouse = Sanaya Nariman<ref name="bombayparsipunchayet.com">[http://bombayparsipunchayet.com/file/0901122154felicitation_combined.pdf The BPP Review (17 December 2011) : Solicitor General feted] Last Retrieved on 4 February 2011</ref>
| office2 = [[Solicitor General of India]]
| appointer2 = [[Pratibha Patil]]
| term_start2 = 27 July 2011
| term_end2 = 4 February 2013
| residence =
}}
'''Rohinton Fali Nariman''' (born 13 August 1956) is a former [[Judge]] of the [[Supreme Court of India]].<ref>{{Cite news|title=Justice Nariman bids adieu to SC bench after enriching court's docket with key verdicts|work=The Economic Times|url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/justice-nariman-bids-adieu-to-sc-bench-after-enriching-courts-docket-with-key-verdicts/articleshow/85274395.cms|access-date=2021-08-12}}</ref> Before being elevated as a judge, he practised as a [[senior counsel]] at the Supreme Court. He was appointed the [[Solicitor General of India]] on 23 July 2011.<ref name="hindu1">[http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2287939.ece], Rohinton Nariman appointed Solicitor-General</ref> He also served as a member of the [[Bar Council of India]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.barcouncilofindia.org/about/about-the-bar-council-of-india/members/|title=Office Bearers of Bar Council of India « The Bar Council of India}}</ref> He was designated as a [[Senior Counsel]] by [[Manepalli Narayana Rao Venkatachaliah|Justice Venkatachaliah]] (the then [[Chief Justice of India]]) in 1993 at the early age of 37.<ref name="hindu1" /><ref name=Website>{{cite web|title=Rohinton F. Nariman – Personal Website|url=http://www.rohintonnariman.com/|accessdate=30 August 2014|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140322103931/http://www.rohintonnariman.com/|archivedate=22 March 2014}}</ref><ref name="bar-cnl">{{cite web|title=Rohinton Nariman is new Solicitor General of India|url=http://nationalbarindia.org/news/14/rohinton-nariman-is-new-solicitor-general-of-india/}}</ref>

==Early life and education==
Nariman is the son of [[Fali Sam Nariman]],<ref name="pari1" /> a distinguished Indian [[jurist]]. He received his early education in [[Mumbai]], at the [[Cathedral and John Connon School]].<ref>[http://bombayparsipunchayet.com/file/0901122154felicitation_combined.pdf The BPP Review (17 December 2011) : Solicitor General feted],</ref> He completed his undergraduate B.Com. degree from [[Shri Ram College of Commerce]]. He completed his [[LL.B]] from [http://clc.du.ac.in Campus Law Centre] of the [[Faculty of Law, University of Delhi]], where he ranked 2nd in the batch. He then went to [[Harvard Law School]] for his LL.M. degree in 1980–81 where he was taught by stalwarts like [[Laurence Tribe|Professor Laurence Tribe]] and [[Roberto Mangabeira Unger|Professor Unger]].

==Legal career==
Nariman joined the Bar as an advocate in 1979.<ref name="old.legalera.in">[http://old.legalera.in/Front-Page/rohinton-nariman-to-be-new-solicitor-general.html Legal Era – Rohinton Nariman To Be New Solicitor General] Last Retrieved on 4 February 2013.</ref> [[Times of India]] has placed him among top ten lawyers of his time.<ref name="articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com">[https://web.archive.org/web/20131120053027/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-01-09/india/28139161_1_nariman-s-point-junior-lawyers-final-list/5 India's top 10 lawyers – Times of India] Last retrieved on 4 February 2013</ref> After his year at Harvard, he practised Maritime Law in New York at Haight, Gardner, Poor & Havens for a year.<ref name="bombayparsipunchayet.com"/><ref name="rohintonnariman.com">http://www.rohintonnariman.com</ref>
He has been designated as a [[Senior Advocate]] at [[Supreme Court of India]] from 15 December 1993 at the young age of 37.<ref name="supremecourtofindia.nic.in">{{Cite web|url=https://main.sci.gov.in/|title=Home | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA|website=main.sci.gov.in}}</ref> While appointing him [[Manepalli Narayana Rao Venkatachaliah|Chief Justice Venkatachalaiah]] amended the rules as Nariman was of 37 years and the minimum age for being made a senior in the Supreme Court was 45.<ref name="pari1" />

He has been practising law for the last 30 years and has more than 500 reported Supreme Court Judgments to his credit. He is an expert in Comparative Constitutional Law and Civil Law. He has argued numerous cases, including the constitutional bench judgments of P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra<ref>(2005) 6 SCC 537</ref> and State of Punjab v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd.<ref>(2004) 11 SCC 26</ref>

One of Mr. Nariman's latest cases, Enercon (India) Ltd. v. Enercon GMBH, Civil Appeal No. 2086 of 2014, has clarified the arbitration law on the seat/venue dichotomy. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Scotch Whisky Assn., (2008) 10 SCC 723 is a landmark case in trademark law wherein the arguments of Mr. Nariman that the class of buyer may be relevant to the determination of a passing off action and it is not always the test of the prudent man which would apply was accepted.
He has argued the cases for theatre artist [[Vijay Tendulkar]] and the controversy-marred play [[Sakharam Binder]]. He claims that these two cases have been the turning points of his life.<ref name="articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com"/> He has handled the high-profile case of gas sharing between the [[Reliance Industries Limited]] (led by [[Mukesh Ambani]]) and [[Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group]] (which is led by [[Anil Ambani]]).<ref name="bar-cnl" /><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.indianexpress.com/news/rohinton-nariman-appointed-solicitor-general/823430/|title=Rohinton Nariman appointed Solicitor General|date=28 July 2011}}</ref>

He has set up the Supreme Court Lawyers Welfare Trust which works for the welfare of lawyers and encourages young talent.<ref name="articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com"/><ref>[http://barandbench.com/brief/2/2410/supreme-court-lawyers-welfare-trust-encourages-young-talent-introduces-2-annual-fellowships Supreme Court Lawyers Welfare Trust encourages young talent; Introduces 2 annual fellowships – Bar and Bench] Last Retrieved on 4 February 2013.</ref>

==Solicitor General==
Nariman was of 55 years of age when he was appointed the [[Solicitor General of India]].<ref name="pari1">[http://parsikhabar.net/individuals/rohinton-nariman-to-be-appointed-solicitor-general-of-india/3254/], Rohinton Nariman To Be Appointed Solicitor General of India</ref>

===Resignation===
After being at the post of [[Solicitor General of India]] for eighteen months, Nariman resigned on 4 February 2013. The reason for this is not known though it was said that he shared a poor rapport with the Law Minister [[Ashwani Kumar (politician)|Ashwani Kumar]]<ref>[http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/solicitor-general-rohinton-nariman-resigns-326097?pfrom=home-lateststories NDTV: Solicitor General Rohinton Nariman quits after 18 months in office] Last retrieved on 4 February 2013</ref><ref>[https://archive.today/20130216070101/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-02-04/india/36741817_1_resignation-letter-rohinton-f-nariman-gopal-subramaniam Times of India – Solicitor General RF Nariman resigns] Last retrieved on 4 February 2013</ref>

==Supreme Court Judge==
Nariman was elevated as a Judge of the Supreme Court on 7 July 2014. He is the fifth Supreme Court judge to be elevated directly from the Bar. He retired on attaining the age of 65 years on 12 August 2021.<ref name="5th Advo">{{cite news|title=Justices Arun Mishra, Adarsh Goel and lawyer Rohinton Nariman appointed Supreme Court judges|url=http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-06-26/news/50884910_1_rohinton-nariman-supreme-court-apex-court|accessdate=30 August 2014|work=Economic Times|agency=PTI|date=26 June 2014}}</ref>

==Book==
In November 2016, Nariman's book on the [[Zoroastrian]] religion, ''The Inner Fire'', was released. The book is an analysis of the [[Gathas]].<ref name="Hindu November 2016">{{cite news|url=http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/Religion-has-claimed-more-lives-than-politics-says-CJI/article16662570.ece |title=Religion has claimed more lives than politics, says CJI |work=The Hindu|date=21 November 2016|accessdate=23 November 2016}}</ref>

==Notable judgements==
===Freedom of Speech===
{{Main|Shreya Singhal v. Union of India}}
Nariman and [[Jasti Chelameswar]] formed the two judge [[Bench (law)|bench]] of the Supreme Court of India which struck down a controversial law which gave Indian police the power to arrest anyone accused of posting emails or other electronic messages which "causes annoyance or inconvenience". The judges held Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which made such offenses punishable up to three years imprisonment, to be unconstitutional. The judgement was authored by Nariman.<ref name="BBC 24 March 2015">{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-32029369 |title=Section 66A: India court strikes down 'Facebook' arrest law |work=BBC|date=24 March 2015|accessdate=19 December 2016}}</ref><ref name="Guardian 24 March 2015">{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/24/india-supreme-court-strikes-down-internet-censorship-law |title=India supreme court strikes down internet censorship law |work=The Guardian|date=24 March 2015|accessdate=19 December 2016}}</ref><ref name="Hoot 25 March 2015">{{cite news|url=http://www.thehoot.org/media-watch/law-and-policy/a-blow-for-free-speech-8195 |title=A blow for free speech |work=The Hoot|date=25 March 2015|accessdate=19 December 2016}}</ref><ref name="HT 25 March 2015">{{cite news|url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/supreme-court-upholds-free-speech-on-internet-scraps-unconstitutional-section-66a-of-it-act/story-6eWmUdBFtnPBccmsV9LPtL.html |title=Supreme Court upholds free speech on internet, scraps 'unconstitutional' Section 66A of IT Act |work=Hindustan Times|date=25 March 2015|accessdate=19 December 2016}}</ref><ref name="Hindu 24 March 2015">{{cite news|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/SC-strikes-down-'draconian'-Section-66A/article10740659.ece |title=SC strikes down 'draconian' Section 66A |work=The Hindu|date=24 March 2015|accessdate=19 December 2016}}</ref> According to Nariman and Chelameswar, several terms in the law they were striking down were "open-ended, undefined and vague" which made them nebulous in nature. According to the judges: "What may be offensive to one may not be offensive to another. What may cause annoyance or inconvenience to one may not cause annoyance or inconvenience to another."<ref name="Hindu 24 March 2015"/>

In their judgement the judges clarified that a distinction needs to be made between discussion, advocacy, and incitement. Any discussion, or advocacy of even an unpopular cause cannot be restricted, and it is only when such discussion or advocacy reaches the level of incitement whereby it causes public disorder or affects the security of the state can it be curbed.<ref name="Hoot 25 March 2015"/><ref name="HT 25 March 2015"/><ref name="Hindu 24 March 2015"/>

The judgement has been welcomed for defending the Indian Constitution's ideals of tolerance and the Constitutional provisions of free speech.<ref name="Hindu 26 March 2015">{{cite news|url=http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/the-judgment-that-silenced-section-66a/article7032656.ece |title=The judgment that silenced Section 66A |work=The Hindu|date=26 March 2015|accessdate=19 December 2016}}</ref><ref name="NDTV 24 March 2015">{{cite news|url=http://www.ndtv.com/opinion/our-politicians-loved-section-66-a-749141 |title=Our Politicians Loved Section 66(A) |work=NDTV|date=24 March 2015|accessdate=19 December 2016}}</ref> It has been pointed out that the controversial law struck down by Nariman and Chelameswar had gained notoriety after many people in India started getting arrested for seemingly innocuous reasons on the ground that they had violated the now scrapped law.<ref name="HT 25 March 2015"/><ref name="Hindu 26 March 2015"/><ref name="NDTV 24 March 2015"/><ref name="HT 20 August 2015">{{cite news|url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/tech/stats-from-2014-reveal-horror-of-scrapped-section-66a-of-it-act/story-G2xCoELsNbxpl5dXvl0aFJ.html |title= Stats from 2014 reveal horror of scrapped section 66A of IT Act|work=Hindustan Times|date=20 August 2015|accessdate=19 December 2016}}</ref>

===Triple Talaq===
{{Main|Triple talaq in India}}
In a landmark judgement, a five-judge Bench struck down instantaneous [[triple talaq]] by 3–2 majority and termed it void, illegal and unconstitutional. While Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit struck down the practice; Chief Justice JS Khehar and Justice Abdul Nazeer asked Parliament to make a law in this regard.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.india.com/news/india/triple-talaq-verdict-not-unanimous-says-aimim-mp-asaduddin-owaisi-2419584/|title=Triple Talaq Verdict Not Unanimous, Implementation Would Be a Herculean Task: Owaisi|first=India com News|last=Desk|date=22 August 2017|website=India News, Breaking News | India.com}}</ref> Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman judgement was against the practice of Triple Talaq where he stated "Triple Talaq is a disapproved form of divorce. Even the Hanafi law says triple talaq is sinful. 1937 Act recognizes triple talaq and therefore does not violate Article 13. It is not possible for the court to fold his hands when petitioners come to court.<ref name="ndtv.com">{{Cite web|url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/kapil-sibal-in-court-opposed-ending-triple-talaq-his-reaction-to-the-ban-1740506|title=Kapil Sibal In Court Opposed Ending Triple Talaq. His Reaction To The Ban|website=NDTV.com}}</ref> Practice of triple talaq is bad and can be tested as legislation.<ref name="ndtv.com"/>"

=== Sabarimala ===
Justice Nariman, along with Justice [[Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud]], delivered a dissent in Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://scobserver-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/case_document/document_upload/1060/38452_2018_1_1501_18283_Judgement_14-Nov-2019.pdf|title=Raajevaru Judgment|last=|first=|date=|website=|access-date=}}</ref> He held that the decision of five judges in the Sabarimala case which held that women of the ages of ten and fifty shall not be denied entry to the Sabarimala temple is not a fit case for the exercise of review jurisdiction as the judgment does not suffer from an error apparent on the face of record. The dissent observed that the executive is under a constitutional obligation to implement the decisions of the Supreme Court even if they were not parties before them.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.news18.com/news/india/govt-must-read-extremely-important-dissent-order-in-sabarimala-verdict-justice-nariman-2387943.html|title=Govt Must Read 'Extremely Important' Dissent Order in Sabarimala Verdict: Justice Nariman|website=News18|date=15 November 2019|access-date=2020-04-22}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://scroll.in/latest/943812/read-dissenting-view-in-sabarimala-verdict-our-orders-not-to-be-played-with-sc-judge-to-centre|title='Read dissenting view in Sabarimala verdict, our orders not to be played with': SC judge to Centre|author=Scroll Staff|website=Scroll.in|language=en-US|access-date=2020-04-22}}</ref> Justice Nariman observed:<blockquote>Bona fide criticism of a judgment, albeit of the highest court of the land, is certainly permissible, but thwarting, or encouraging persons to thwart, the directions or orders of the highest court cannot be countenanced in our Constitutional scheme of things.</blockquote>

==References==
{{Reflist|2}}

{{authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Nariman, Rohinton}}
[[Category:Solicitors General of India]]
[[Category:Living people]]
[[Category:Parsi people from Mumbai]]
[[Category:20th-century Indian judges]]
[[Category:1956 births]]
[[Category:Indian legal scholars]]
[[Category:Harvard Law School alumni]]
[[Category:Justices of the Supreme Court of India]]
[[Category:21st-century Indian judges]]
[[Category:Scholars from Mumbai]]
[[Category:Shri Ram College of Commerce alumni]]
[[Category:Faculty of Law, University of Delhi alumni]]
[[Category:Supreme Court of India lawyers]]

Rohinton Fali Nariman - Revision history

->Snickers2686: Removing template