Indira Banerjee

Indira Banerjee

Sitting Judge of the Supreme Court of India

Assumed Office7th Aug, 2018

Retired On24th Sep, 2022

Previously

Chief Justice of the Madras High CourtApril 5th 2017

Permanent Judge of the Delhi High CourtAugust 8th 2016

Permanent Judge of the Calcutta High CourtFebruary 5th 2002

EnrolmentJuly 5th 1985

Age: 64

Tracked Cases: 5

Education

LawCalcutta University, College of Law

History (Hons.)Presidency College

SchoolLoreto House, Calcutta

Profile

Justice Indira Banerjee was the 8th woman to be a judge in the Supreme Court. Banerjee J graduated from Presidency College and received her LL.B from College of Law, Calcutta University. In February 2002, she was appointed as a Judge of the Calcutta High Court. She was transferred to the Delhi High Court in August 2016 before being appointed as the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court in April 2017.

 

Banerjee J was elevated as a judge of the Supreme Court on August 7th 2018.

 

Notable Judgments

A five-judge Bench in Rajendra Diwan v Pradeep Kumar Ranibala (2019) held that Section 13(2) Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 was unconstitutional due to legislative incompetence. Banerjee J authored the unanimous opinion.

 

She held that State Legislative Assembly had wrongly conferred appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court. This would mean that even in instances of the Rent Controller and Rent Control Tribunal concurring in their decisions an appeal would have to be heard by the Supreme Court. Justice Banerjee noted that the High Courts exercise supervisory jurisdiction over tribunals and emphasised that allowing direct appeals to the Supreme Court would be greatly inefficient.

 

Banerjee J authored the unanimous opinion of a three-judge Bench in Dattatraya v State of Maharashtra (2019). The appellant’s death sentence was reduced to to life imprisonment, due to a lack of pre-meditation. The appellant had been accused of murdering a minor girl. Justice Banerjee emphasised that the accused had received unsatisfactory legal aid, pointing out non-assistance by a social worker and no attempt to place the mitigating circumstances on record. Further, she observed that the trial court failed to consider the question of reform when imposing the death sentence.

 

In Sushila Aggarwal v State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) a five-judge Bench clarified that there is no time limit on when individuals can seek anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Banerjee J authored a concurring opinion, observing that the protection does not automatically expire when an accused is summoned to Court. It is open to the court to impose appropriate conditions for anticipatory bail.