Signing you in

Through Collegium meetings led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) this month, besides Justice Chandrashekhar, the names of Chief Justices of three other HCs along with a senior advocate were recommended for elevation as SC judges, after judges strength was increased from 34 to 38.

Justice Chandrashekhar, who was sworn in as the 49th CJ of Bombay HC on September 5, 2025, was born on May 25, 1965, in Ranchi.

Justice Chandrashekhar completed his LLB from the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, in 1993 and was enrolled as an advocate in Delhi in December 1993. He practised civil and criminal matters for nearly 19 years across various courts, including the SC, and appeared for the government and private entities.

On January 17, 2013, he became an additional judge of the Jharkhand High Court and subsequently a permanent judge on June 27, 2014, and also served as Acting CJ of Jharkhand HC in December 2023. He was transferred as a Bombay HC judge on July 14 last yearHe was also part of the three-member committee constituted by Lok Sabha Speaker OM Birla to investigate allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma. The panel submitted its report earlier this month.

His over eight-month tenure saw several key rulings in politically sensitive, environmental, commercial and criminal matters. A bench led by him along with two others opted to switch off public viewing of proceedings on HC’s live streaming platform.

Amid the Bombay HC summer vacation, on May 20, his bench quashed an FIR against former Mumbai police commissioner and former Maharashtra DGP Sanjay Pandey. The allegations included forcing a person to lodge complaints against Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis and Deputy CM Eknath Shinde.

On May 7, the CJ Chandrashekhar-led bench upheld a 2018 special court verdict acquitting all 22 accused, including 21 police personnel from Gujarat, Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh, in the Sohrabuddin Shaikh encounter case.

On April 23, his bench quashed charges against the last four remaining accused in the 2006 Malegaon blasts case. Two days earlier, his bench dismissed a PIL seeking recovery of expenses incurred on providing Z-plus security cover to RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat.

Earlier that month, Justice Chandrashekhar set aside MMRDA penalty demand notices related to Bandra-Kurla Complex (BKC) plots and ordered refunds of over Rs 700 crore deposited by entities, including Reliance Industries Ltd.

CJ Chandrashekhar’s bench last month also ordered shipping authorities to hand over the charred mortal remains of seafarer Dixit Solanki, killed in the West Asia conflict, for DNA testing in Mumbai as sought by his family.

On March 27, his bench dismissed a plea seeking a CBI probe into bribery allegations against Adani Green Energy Ltd and its associates over solar power contracts across states.

In February, in a setback to businessman Anil Ambani, the CJ Chandrashekhar-led bench set aside an “illegal” interim order staying action by three banks against Ambani over allegedly fraudulent accounts. His bench also rejected a plea by a private developer and cleared the transfer of Kanjurmarg land for the Metro-6 car shed project.

The same month, the bench remarked that fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya would have to return to India to pursue proceedings challenging the validity of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018.

On January 29, while noting that air pollution levels in Mumbai and nearby regions were not declining, a bench led by Justice Chandrashekhar constituted a high-powered committee of two former judges to oversee compliance measures by authorities.

The CJ Chandrashekhar-led bench also stayed elections to Maharashtra Cricket Association over alleged illegal voter additions and also held ED’s arrest of former Vasai Virar City Municipal Corporation (VVCMC) commissioner Anilkumar Khanderao Pawar as “illegal.”

In December last year, the CJ Chandrashekhar-led bench allowed the felling of 45,675 mangroves for the proposed Versova–Bhayandar coastal road project, while emphasising the ecological significance of mangroves for Mumbai and Thane and holding that their destruction could be permitted only for “demonstrably required public interest”. The Supreme Court later refused to interfere with the ruling.