Meet Justice L.M. Sharma and his Notable Judicial decisions
- ByPravleen Kaur --
- 17 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
Justice Lalit Mohan Sharma (1928–2008) was the 24th Chief Justice of India, serving from November 18, 1992, to February 11, 1993. Born in Gaya, Bihar, he was the son of L.N. Sinha, a former Attorney General of India. Justice Sharma’s legal career began in the Patna High Court, where he started as an advocate in 1950 and was later elevated to the bench in 1973. He joined the Supreme Court in 1987 and, over his seven-year tenure, authored 157 judgments and sat on 406 benches.
Judicial Career and Philosophy
Justice L.M. Sharma was known for his expertise in constitutional and service law, but his judgments also spanned property, tenancy, and criminal law. He was respected for his clarity, adherence to legal principles, and commitment to judicial independence.
Landmark Judgments
1. Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu & Ors (1992) – Anti-Defection Law
Justice Sharma was part of the five-judge bench that decided the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law). The bench struck down Paragraph 7, which barred judicial review of the Speaker’s decisions, as unconstitutional. While the majority held that the Speaker’s decisions could only be reviewed after being made, Sharma dissented, arguing that the Speaker, being dependent on the majority in the House, could not be considered an independent adjudicator and should not be the sole arbiter in defection cases.
2. K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991)
In this case, the Supreme Court held that High Court and Supreme Court judges are public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and the Indian Penal Code. The judgment clarified that no FIR could be registered against a sitting judge without the approval of the competent authority, thus ensuring judicial accountability while protecting judicial independence.
3. Chand Rani (Dead) by LRs v. Kamal Rani (Dead) by LRs (1993)
Presided over by Justice Sharma, this five-judge bench held that in contracts for the sale of immovable property, there is no presumption that time is of the essence. However, the court may infer that timely performance is required based on the contract’s terms, the nature of the property, and surrounding circumstances.
4. Mohan Pandey & Ors v. Usha Rani Rajgaria & Ors
Justice Sharma held that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be used to resolve private disputes over immovable property when remedies under general law are available, reinforcing the principle that writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for ordinary civil or criminal remedies.
Legacy
Justice L.M. Sharma is remembered for his principled stands on judicial review, judicial accountability, and the proper limits of constitutional jurisdiction. His judgments continue to influence Indian constitutional and administrative law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments