SC panel visits Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence: Who are the 3 judges in the inquiry committee?

The three-member inquiry panel:

1. Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu

After enrolling as an advocate in 1987, Chief Justice Sheel Nagu practised on the civil and constitutional sides as an advocate in Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Jabalpur bench before being appointed as an additional judge at the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 2011. He became a permanent judge in 2013.

In May 2024, he was appointed as acting Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Two months later, on July 9, 2024, he was appointed as the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Chief Justice Nagu’s name was recommended by the Supreme Court collegium comprising then Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna and B R Gavai on December 28, 2023, after the retirement of Chief Justice Ravi Shankar Jha.

Earlier this month, heading a two-judge division bench, Chief Justice Nagu directed the governments of Punjab, Haryana, and the Union Territory of Chandigarh to submit compliance reports every two months on their efforts to curb the wild growth of cannabis plants.

In January, again heading a division bench, Chief Justice Nagu ordered the reinstatement of an additional district and sessions judge who had been dismissed from service in March 2022, during the probation period, on account of “doubtful integrity”. It was alleged that the trial court judge, while practising as a lawyer, in connivance with a woman had got a false rape FIR registered in 2012. He was then given a ‘B+ Good’ grading in the annual confidential report for the year 2014-15 and in the integrity column, it was mentioned: ‘good, subject to the outcome of the pending complaint’.

In February this year, heading a two-judge division bench, Chief Justice Nagu, acting in a PIL, asked the Punjab government to decide on a representation seeking action against illegal travel agents duping people by illegally sending them abroad.

2. Himachal Pradesh High Court Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia

Enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh in 1989, Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia took charge as acting chief justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in February 2024, after being elevated as an additional judge in 2011. He was made permanent in 2014.

As a lawyer, he has dealt with criminal, civil, service, land acquisition and constitutional law while also being on the panel of various government bodies. Chief Justice Sandhawalia’s father was formerly the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

In 2023, heading a division bench at the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Justice Sandhawalia underlined that a government cannot discriminate against individuals merely because they do not belong to a particular state while quashing a law passed by the Haryana government in 2020 that provided 75 per cent reservation in private jobs to residents of the state.

In July 2024, Chief Justice Sandhawalia was recommended by the SC collegium for appointment as Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court but was not cleared by the Centre. The Collegium recommended him a second time in September, for appointment as Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court. The Centre cleared the appointment.

3. Karnataka High Court judge Justice Anu Sivaraman

Justice Anu Sivaraman enrolled as an advocate in March 1991 in Kerala and was also senior government pleader as well as special government pleader. She was elevated as an additional judge of the Kerala High Court in 2015 and was made permanent in April 2017. She was transferred to the Karnataka High Court in March 2024.

At Kerala High Court, in a plea filed by the Adani Group against obstruction and blockade due to protests at the Vizhinjam port, in December 2022, Justice Sivaraman had asked the state and central governments to discuss the possibility of deploying central forces.

Last year in May, heading a two-judge division bench at the Karnataka High Court, Justice Sivaraman had ruled that a wife can contest a divorce decree even after the husband’s death while setting aside a family court’s order. This essentially meant that the wife would be entitled to all benefits of widow status as her husband had passed away after she had challenged the divorce decree granted by the family court in the high court.