M.B. Lokur

M.B. Lokur

Retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India

Assumed Office4th Jun, 2012

Retired On30th Dec, 2018


Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High CourtNovember 15th 2011- June 3rd 2012

Chief Justice of the Guwahati High CourtJune 24th 2010- November 14th 2011

Acting Chief Justice of the Delhi High CourtFebruary 13th 2010- May 21st 2010

Judge of the Delhi High Court1999-2010


EnrollmentJuly 28th 1977

Age: 67

Tracked Cases: 5


L.L.B.Faculty of Law, Delhi University


Justice Lokur has authored 159 judgments (as of 14th December 2018, according to Manupatra). He is known for presiding matters of social justice, earning his Bench the “social justice bench” moniker. Over the years, he has authored landmark judgments in various constitutional cases.


He was a part of the Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court with Justice PV Sanjay Kumar which struck down 4.5% reservation, including access to the prestigious Central Educational Institutions under the Act of 2006, for Muslims and other minorities.


As the Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Justice Lokur suspended and ordered the prosecution of Special CBI Judge T Pattabhirama Rao who granted bail to G. Janardhana Reddy, who is involved in illegal mining.


He was a part of the Bench along with Justice Deepak Gupta, that asked the Centre take steps for solid waste management after as vector-borne diseases have been plaguing different parts of the country due to absence of solid waste management.


In January 2017, he wrote a partly dissenting opinion in Krishna Kumar v State of Bihar. In a 4:3 decision, the SC held that mechanical promulgating of ordinance without laying it before the Legislature/ Parliament is a fraud on the Constitution. Justice Lokur dissented on this point holding that non-laying of Ordinance before the legislature doesnot take away the effect of ordinance. However, he concurred with the majority opinion that an ordinance on its own cannot create irreversible right in the citizen.


He also authored a separate concurring opinion in Abhiram Singh v Commachen case where he widened the scope of Section 123(3) of representation of Peoples Act to hold that politicians addressing the electorates on religion, caste, language will qualify as corrupt practices leading to their disqualification.


Along with Justice Deepak Gupta, he ruled in Independent Thought v UOI case that sex with minor wife is rape.