A judicial beacon, Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal bids farewell

In Tulsi Ram Mishra vs V.K. Janjua, the court set aside criminal proceedings against a former chief secretary after finding that the sanction required for prosecution had not been properly obtained. The matter was returned to the competent authority for reconsideration in accordance with law. He had observed: “Corruption appears to be a low risk and high profit venture and it is imperative that it becomes a low profit and high risk venture if it has to be ultimately eradicated.”

Scrutinising the police

Justice Grewal’s courtroom was also known for its scrutiny of police conduct. In Surjit Singh vs State of Punjab, he took strong note of the fact that while junior constables had been dismissed over misconduct, a senior officer continued in service. The judgment directed authorities to ensure that officers facing serious findings could not continue in sensitive posts.

His examination of gangster Lawrence Bishnoi’s widely publicised jail interviews triggered a wider inquiry. Questioning how such recordings were possible inside prison premises, the court ordered a Special Investigation Team to probe possible collusion, corruption and security lapses.

Justice Grewal also questioned lapses surrounding the killing of a kabaddi promoter in Mohali. The proceedings drew attention to inconsistencies in police posting rules and led to administrative review of transfer policy, manpower audit, enhanced patrolling, a hotline for extortion victims and a new facility for the police helpline.

Shelter for the shelterless

Many of Justice Grewal’s most striking interventions involved people on the margins of society. In Kiran vs Chandigarh Housing Board, he upheld the right of an orphaned girl to inherit her late father’s flat under a slum rehabilitation scheme. The claim had been rejected because she had not yet been born when the survey for beneficiaries was conducted and her name did not appear on electoral rolls. Invoking the constitutional guarantee of dignity and life under Article 21, the court ruled that such technicalities could not defeat a genuine claim and recognised her as the rightful heir.

In Simone Verma vs State of Punjab, two siblings aged 19 and 14 faced the loss of their home when a bank initiated recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. Justice Grewal urged the creditor to pause the auction and explore relief through its corporate social responsibility programme. The intervention resulted not only in a pause in the recovery process but also support for the children’s education, blending legal authority with humanitarian concern.

The case of Surekha vs Axis Bank raised a different challenge. A mother sought authority to manage financial matters because her son, who had taken a loan, was in a prolonged coma following an accident. With no clear statutory framework for such situations involving adults in a vegetative state, Justice Grewal invoked the court’s protective jurisdiction and appointed her as guardian after medical verification. He also laid down interim guidelines for Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh until legislation addresses the issue.

In Master Eric Thind vs Union of India, the court resolved a complex surrogacy dispute involving an Australian father whose child faced visa and guardianship hurdles before the Surrogacy Act came into force. Prioritising the welfare of the child and international child-rights principles, Justice Grewal declared the father the child’s legal guardian.

Similarly, in Mandeep Kaur vs State of Punjab, the court ordered that a toddler be reunited with her Australian mother, recognising foreign court orders and the principle that children of tender years are ordinarily best cared for by their mothers.

Defender of liberty

Justice Grewal also weighed in on questions of personal liberty and public accountability. In Manjit Singh Manga vs State of Punjab, he observed that even stringent laws such as the UAPA must be balanced against the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty, particularly when trials are unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time.

In Court on its own motion vs Surjeet Singh, the court declined to pursue contempt proceedings against a citizen who had criticised delays in a magistrate’s court, observing that constructive criticism should not be mistaken for contempt.

Protector of policyholders

Justice Grewal also developed a reputation for closely examining insurance disputes. In Bajaj Allianz vs Kashmir Singh Gill, the insurer had rejected a claim on the ground that the policyholder had failed to disclose haematuria before purchasing the policy. The court held that blood in urine was only a symptom and not a diagnosed disease, particularly when the insurer’s own pre-policy tests had cleared the applicant, and allowed the claim of Rs 7.6 lakh.

In The New India Assurance vs Vishal Dhupar, he upheld coverage for costly cancer injections even though the patient had not undergone prolonged hospitalisation. He underlined that insurance policies must be interpreted fairly and exclusions read narrowly so that policyholders are not denied legitimate benefits.

As he leaves the bench, his record stands as a reminder that judicial authority can be exercised with both firmness and empathy, ensuring that the law serves not only procedure, but justice itself.