Justice Pankaj Mithal, who was elevated to the Supreme Court in February 2023, began his tryst with law in the 1980s. After 2 decades of legal practice, Justice Mithal entered the next stage of his legal journey when he was appointed as a Judge in the Allahabad High Court, and then as Chief Justice of the High Courts of Jammu & Kashmir and Rajasthan.
Early Life and Education
Justice Pankaj Mithal was born on 17-06-1961, at Meerut in a family of lawyers. He received his early education at St. Mary’s Academy, Meerut and graduated in B. Com (Honours) in 1982 from the University of Allahabad. Later joined Meerut College Meerut and obtained his law degree from Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut in 1985 .
*Did you Know? Justice Pankaj Mithal is a third-generation lawyer and a second-generation High Court Judge in his family. His father Justice Narendra Nath Mithal was also a judge of the Allahabad High Court from 14-12-1978 to 07-04-1992 .
Post graduation Justice Mithal enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh in 1985 and started practicing under the guidance of Sudhir Chandra Verma who later adorned the bench of Allahabad High Court as a Judge and then became Lokayukt (UP).
Justice Mithal mainly practiced on the civil side and dealt with large number of cases of land acquisition, rent control, education, motor accident, labour and other miscellaneous matters including service and constitutional.
He served as the Standing Counsel for the Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow and for Dr. B.R Ambedkar University, Agra.
Did you Know? During his days as an advocate, Justice Pankaj Mithal was well-known for his writing. His work ‘The Birth and Life of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad' , tracing the history of Allahabad High Court's, remains widely read even today.
Career as a Judge
Justice Pankaj Mithal was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 07-07-2006 and then elevated as Permanent Judge on 02-07-2008 . He was also posted as Senior Judge of Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the year 2020 .
After serving Allahabad High Court as a Judge till 03-01-2021, Justice Mithal was elevated as Chief Justice of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on 04-01-2021 . Justice Mithal was later transferred to Rajasthan High Court where on 14-10-2022 he took oath as Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court .
Justice Pankaj Mithal's and 4 other Judges' elevation to the Supreme Court was , consequent to which the Ministry of Law and Justice in a notification issued on 04-02-2023, notified the .
Justice Pankaj Mithal was thus elevated to the Supreme Court on 06-02-2023 and is due to retire on 16-06-2026 .
Other Responsibilities/ Nominations
Present Governor of Uttar Pradesh, Anandiben Patel has nominated Justice Mithal to the Executive Council of Ch. Charan Singh University, Meerut.
Justice Mithal is also a trustee of Etawah Hindi Sewa Nidhi and the founder trustee of Justice Narendra Nath Mithal Memorial Foundation, which was established by his mother in memory of his late father.
Notable Judgments of the High Courts
Allahabad High Court
Govt. employee not entitled to death cum retiral gratuity until conclusion of departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings
A Full Bench of Pankaj Mithal, Suneet Kumar and Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, JJ., in Shivagopal v. State of U.P., dismissed a batch of writ petitions . The petitioners were government employees (Lekhpal/Police Officials), who had retired on attaining the age of superannuation, and by the impugned orders, their full pension and gratuity had been withheld due to pending judicial proceedings against them. The petitioners had sought quashing of the impugned orders declining full pension and gratuity during pendency of the judicial proceedings and further sought an additional direction to the respondent authority to release/pay full pension and gratuity.
Decree of divorce by mutual consent is appealable where the consent itself is disputed: Allahabad HC
An appeal filed by the wife against the , was allowed by a Division Bench comprising of Pankaj Mithal and Rajiv Joshi, JJ., in Pooja v. Vijay Chaitanya, .
A decree was passed by the family court under Section of for dissolution of the marriage of the appellant-wife and her husband by mutual consent. The wife preferred the appeal under Section read with Section of , against the said decree contending that her consent was obtained by undue influence. The question before the Court was ‘whether an appeal under Section 19 of Family Courts Act would lie against a decree passed under Section 13-B HMA?
Is the District Magistrate under obligation to provide protection to senior citizens being harassed by their children? Allahabad HC explains
The Division Bench of Pankaj Mithal and Saurabh Lavania, JJ., in Krishna Pal Singh v. State of U.P., , directed the District Magistrate to provide protection to senior citizens being troubled by their children. The Uttar Pradesh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014 framed under the casts an obligation upon the district administration, especially, the District Magistrate to ensure that the life and property of senior citizens of the district are protected and they are able to live with security and dignity.
Bench stated that in view of Rule 21 of above-stated Rules, and action on the aforesaid application of the petitioners.
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Is there any law requiring registration of News portals? Which authority is examining content of News before it is circulated? J&K and Ladakh HC asks Government
The Division Bench of Pankaj Mithal, CJ, and Sanjay Dhar, J., in Jammu and Kashmir Peoples Forum v. UT of J&K, , asked Jammu and Kashmir government if there exist any law to in the Union Territory and whether there exist any provisions to keep a check on circulation of fake news.
Hyderpora Encounter| J&K and Ladakh HC allows the family of deceased Amir Magrey to perform Fatiha Khawani; upholds compensation awarded by the Single Judge Bench
While deciding the instant appeal directed against the decision of the Single Judge Bench in Mohd. Latief Magrey v. Union of India, ; the Division Bench of Pankaj Mithal, CJ., and Javed Iqbal Wani, J., in Union Territory of J&K v. Mohd. Latief Magrey, , directed the appellants to allow Mohd. Lateif Magery and his family to at the Wadder Payeen graveyard, subject to taking into account the required security measures and COVID-19 guidelines. The Court also upheld the compensation of Rs. 5 Lakhs awarded to the respondents in the afore-stated case.
Death by consumption of spurious cough syrup; is government vicariously liable? J&K and Ladakh HC backs NHRC's order directing State to pay 3 lakh compensation
The Division Bench of Pankaj Mithal, CJ. and Sindhu Sharma, J., in UT of J&K v. NHRC, , upheld National Human Rights Commission's order regarding compensation, whereby the commission had due to consumption of spurious cough syrup.
Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan High Court quashes notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for non-supply of ‘reasons to believe'
The division bench of Pankaj Mithal, CJ and Rekha Borana, J., in Micro Marbles Private Limited v. Office of Income Tax Officer, , quashed the notice issued to the petitioner under Section of the (‘The Act’) as well as the order dismissing the objections of the petitioner by the Income Tax Officer (‘respondents’) in relation to the , stating that material referred to by the respondents were on the basis of ‘reason to believe’ which was not even supplied to the petitioner resulting into the entire proceedings for reopening of the assessment being vitiated in law.
Vacancy caused due to resignation of selected candidate must be readvertised and filled up by fresh selection: Rajasthan HC
In a challenge to the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench1, which had dismissed the original application of the petitioner praying for his appointment for a post vacant after the previous candidate's resignation, the division bench of Pankaj Mithal, C.J. and Shubha Mehta, J., Sumer Singh v. Union of India, upheld the order of the Tribunal stating that the , and the petitioner thus, is not entitled to the appointment on the post so advertised.
Notable Judgments of the Supreme Court
Supreme Court stays Allahabad High Court order seeking report on rape victim's mangal dosh
Taking Suo Motu cognizance of the matter where the Allahabad High Court had directed the Astrology Department of Lucknow University to determine if the alleged rape victim is a after the accused refused to marry her, the vacation bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia and Pankaj Mithal, JJ., in Gobind Rai v. State of U.P., , has stayed the said direction “in the interest of justice”.
Whether power of attorney, will, agreement to sell can be recognised as title documents conferring rights in any immovable property?
After having lost from all the three courts below, the defendant (appellant) to the eviction suit has preferred this appeal, wherein the division bench of Dipankar Datta and Pankaj Mithal*, JJ., in Ghanshyam v. Yogendra Rathi, , said that the respondent is in settled possession of the suit property at least in part performance of the agreement which cannot be disturbed or disputed by the transferer, i.e., the appellant. Thus, it was held that the respondent is entitled for a decree of eviction with mesne profits, and there is no error or illegality in such a decree being passed. Further, it was held that or documents conferring rights in any immovable property.
Allopathy/ Ayurved Doctors not on a par with MBBS Doctors; Can't claim equal pay
In a Civil Appeal challenging the common order passed by the High Court of Gujarat, wherein, the High Court had held that the doctors having degrees in alternative systems of medicine are entitled to be treated on a par with doctors holding MBBS degree, the Division Bench led by V. Ramasubramanian* and Pankaj Mithal, JJ., in State of Gujarat v. P.A. Bhatt, , set aside the impugned order holding that .
Pronouncing unprepared judgments is gross negligence and callousness of Judicial Officer
While hearing an appeal filed by the Registrar General of Karnataka (‘appellant') challenging the order of the Karnataka High Court that set aside the penalty of dismissal from service of a Civil Judge (‘respondent'), the Division Bench of V. Ramasubramanian* and Pankaj Mithal, JJ., in The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka v. M. Narasimha Prasad, , .
Can Government employees claim Double Overtime Allowance as per the Factories Act?
The against the common order passed by the Bombay High Court which had affirmed the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal') which had stated that the employees working as Supervisors were entitled to Double Over Time Allowance. While exercising its civil appellate jurisdiction, the Division Bench of V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal JJ., in Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Limited v. Vijay D. Kasbe, , held that the government employees cannot claim double overtime allowance as per the Factories Act, 1948 (‘The Factories Act'), if the service rules do not provide for it.
Supreme Court affirms Gauhati HC's reversal of Assam MLA Akhil Gogoi's discharge in anti-CAA protest case but grants bail
The bench of V. Ramasubramanian* and Pankaj Mithal, JJ., in Akhil Gogoi v. State, , affirmed Gauhati High Court's order reversing an Order of discharge passed by the Special Court, NIA, Guwahati, Assam against in relation to the anti-CAA protest case but has directing his release on bail, pending trial, subject to conditions imposed by the Special Court. The Court noted that, “This is not a case where the petitioner should be allowed to be detained in custody, especially after having secured an order of discharge, rightly or wrongly.”
Supreme Court grants interim relief to homebuyers for deferred payment of EMIs till possession of homes
In a petition against the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Delhi, wherein the relief to the homebuyers/ petitioners for deferment of payment of Equated Monthly Instalment (‘EMIs') to the Banks and financial institutions was lifted, the Division Bench of V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ., in Rohit Kumar v. Union of India, issued notice and for deferred payment of EMIs.
*Judge who has authored the Judgment
Civil Writ Petition No. 14472 of 2022
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 10173/2023
The post appeared first on .