S.C. Sharma

Satish Chandra Sharma

S.C. Sharma

Sitting Judge of the Supreme Court of India

Assumed Office9th Nov, 2023

Retires On29th Nov, 2026


Chief Justice of Delhi High CourtJune 28th 2022 - November 8th 2023

Chief Justice of Telangana High CourtOctober 11th 2021-June 27th 2022

Acting Chief Justice of Karnataka High CourtAugust 31st 2021-October 10th 2021

Permanent Judge of Madhya Pradesh High CourtJanuary 15th 2010 - August 30th 2021

Additional Judge of Madhya Pradesh High CourtJanuary 8th 2008 - January 14th 2010

Senior Panel Counsel by the Government of IndiaJune 28th 2004

Senior Advocate at High Court of Madhya Pradesh2003

Additional Central Government CounselMay 28th 1993

Age: 62

Tracked Cases: 5


LLBDr. Hari Singh Gour University, Sagar

B.Sc.Dr. Hari Singh Gour University, Sagar


Early Life and Education

Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was born on November 30 1961 in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. His father, Dr. B.N. Sharma, was a Professor at Jabalpur University and later the Vice Chancellor of Barkatullah University, Bhopal. His mother, Shanti Sharma, was the Principal of Maharani Lakshmibai Higher Secondary School, Jabalpur. She worked as a District Education Officer at Jabalpur.

Justice Sharma did his primary schooling at Christ Church Boys Higher Secondary School, Jabalpur. He completed his higher secondary education from Central School Jabalpur. In 1981, he received a Bachelor of Science degree from Dr. Hari Singh Gour University, Sagar. He secured a distinction in three subjects. He enrolled in the University as a student of law in 1981. In 1984, he graduated with an L.LB degree with three gold medals.

Career as an Advocate

Justice Sharma enrolled as an Advocate at the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh on 1 September 1984. He started his practice at the Madhya Pradesh High Court in constitutional, service, civil, and criminal matters. In May 1993, he was appointed as Additional Central Government Counsel. 

In 2003, the Madhya Pradesh High Court designated him as a Senior Advocate. He was one of the youngest Senior Advocates of the High Court at the age of 42. 

Career as a Judge

On 18 January 2008, after over 20 years as a practising advocate, Justice Sharma was elevated to an Additional Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Two years later, he was appointed as a Permanent Judge on 15 January 2010. 

On 4 January 2021, after 12 years at the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Justice Sharma took oath as a permanent judge of the Karnataka High Court. On 31 August 2021, he was appointed as the Acting Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court. 

On 11 October 2021, Justice Sharma was elevated to the role of the Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court. 

On 28 June 2022, Justice Sharma took oath as the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court.

On 6 November 2023, a little over a year after he assumed duties as the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, the collegium recommended Justice Sharma as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India. The resolution noted his experience as a Chief Justice of a High Court and his 15-year-long experience as a judge of different High Courts. They also noted his subject matter expertise in constitutional, civil, and criminal law. 

Justice Sharma took oath at the Supreme Court on 9 November 2023. 

Notable Judgments

In Ashok Agarwal v Union of India (2023), Justice Sharma issued a directive to the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi to strictly comply with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Balram Singh v Union of India (2023). The guidelines were adopted for the effective implementation of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and the Rehabilitation Act of 2013

In National Association for the Deaf v Union of India (2023), Chief Justice Sharma held that the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) violated the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPWD Act) by not granting reservations in jobs for Persons with Disabilities (PwD). A division bench led by Chief Justice Sharma was hearing a petition against job application advertisements by KVS. The National Association for the Deaf argued that KVS ignored the statutory provisions contained under the RPWD Act. 

Chief Justice Sharma observed that the provisions of the RPWD Act mandate four per cent reservations for PwDs, and one per cent for people with seeing or hearing impairment, autism, or any other physical disability. He noted the aim of the RPWD Act was to provide “reasonable accommodation” so that all possible special measures are adopted to enable the PwDs to perform to the best of their ability.

Subscribe to SCO