S. J. Mukhopadhaya
{{Short description|Indian judge (born 1950)}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=August 2020}}
{{Infobox officeholder
| honorific-prefix =
| name = S. J. Mukhopadhaya
| honorific-suffix =
| image =
| alt =
| caption =
| office = Judge of the Supreme Court of India
| term_start = 13 September 2011
| term_end = 14 March 2015
| nominator =
| appointer =
| birth_date = {{Birth date and age|df=yes|1950|03|15}}
| birth_place =
| death_date =
| death_place =
| residence =
| alma_mater = Magadh University
Patna University
}}
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya (15 March 1950) is a former justice of the Supreme Court of India.{{Cite web|title=Former judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya |publisher=Supreme Court of India | url=http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/judges/bio/151_sjmukhopadhaya.htm |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150923235054/http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/judges/bio/151_sjmukhopadhaya.htm |archivedate=23 September 2015 |url-status=live}} He was also chair of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal from 1 June 2016 to 14 March 2020. He previously served as Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court and also served as acting Chief Justice at the Jharkhand High Court{{Cite news| title=S.J. Mukhopadhaya sworn in judge |newspaper=The Hindu | date=1 September 2006 |url=http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-tamilnadu/sj-mukhopadhaya-sworn-in-judge/article3069104.ece |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140106032158/http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-tamilnadu/sj-mukhopadhaya-sworn-in-judge/article3069104.ece |archivedate=6 January 2014|url-status=live}} and the Madras High Court.{{cite news | url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/justice-mukhopadhaya-appointed-chief-justice-of-gujarat-high-court/article61120.ece | title=Justice Mukhopadhaya appointed Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court | work=The Hindu | date=7 December 2009 | accessdate=5 January 2014}}
Notable judgements
= ''Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation''=
{{Main|Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation}}
A Supreme Court bench of justice G. S. Singhvi and Justice SJ Mukhopadhaya has upheld the Section 377 of India's penal code bans "sex against the order of nature", which is widely interpreted to mean homosexual sex. The judges stated that "a minuscule fraction of the country's population constitutes lesbians, gays, bisexuals or transgenders" and that the High Court had erroneously relied upon international precedents "in its anxiety to protect the so-called rights of LGBT persons". The United Nations human rights chief Navi Pillay voiced her disappointment at the re-criminalization of consensual same-sex relationships in India, calling it "a significant step backwards" for the country and Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon stressed the need for equality and opposed any discrimination against lesbians, gays and bisexuals. The decision is widely believed to be one of the lowest points of Indian Supreme Court jurisprudence.{{cn|date=May 2023}}
In the Puttaswamy v. Union Of India case, the 9-judge bench commented on the verdict that the size of the population should have no barring on the protection of fundamental rights. The bench commented that the "so-called rights" implies an illusion, but the claims were grounded in the constitution.{{Cite news |date=24 August 2017 |title=Right to Privacy Judgement |pages= |work=Supreme Court of India |url=http://sci.gov.in/pdf/LU/ALL%20WP(C)%20No.494%20of%202012%20Right%20to%20Privacy.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170828075957/http://sci.gov.in/pdf/LU/ALL%20WP(C)%20No.494%20of%202012%20Right%20to%20Privacy.pdf |archive-date=28 August 2017}} Subsequently, the judgement was overturned by a 5-judge constitutional bench on 6 September 2018 in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India.{{Cite web |date=December 11, 2013 |title=LGBT community expresses shock as Supreme Court rules gay sex illegal, calls it a 'black day' |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/north/story/gay-sex-homosexuality-is-an-offence-supreme-court-upholds-section-377-black-day-for-lgbt-community-220371-2013-12-11 |access-date=2019-05-16 |website=India Today |language=en}}
In Lily Thomas v. Union of India a two-judge bench of Justice A. K. Patnaik and Justice Mukhopadhaya on 10 July 2013{{cite web | url=http://indiankanoon.org/doc/63158859/ | title=Lily Thomas vs Union of India & Ors. on 10 July, 2013 | publisher=indiankanoon.org | access-date=3 November 2013}} ruled that any Member of Parliament (MP), Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) or Member of a Legislative Council (MLC) who is convicted of a crime and given a minimum of two years' imprisonment, loses membership of the House with immediate effect. This is in contrast to the earlier position, wherein convicted members held on to their seats until they exhausted all judicial remedy in lower court, High Court and the Supreme Court of India. Further, Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, which allowed elected representatives three months to appeal their conviction,{{cite web | url=http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1784702/ | title=Section 8 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 | publisher=indiankanoon.org | access-date=22 October 2013}} was declared unconstitutional.{{cite news | url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/mps-mlas-to-be-disqualified-on-date-of-criminal-conviction/article4901596.ece | title=MPs, MLAs to be disqualified on date of criminal conviction | work=The Hindu | date=10 July 2013 | access-date=21 October 2013| last1=Venkatesan | first1=J. }}
References
{{Reflist}}
{{Clear}}
{{authority control}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Mukhopadhaya, S. J.}}
Category:Justices of the Supreme Court of India
Category:Chief justices of the Gujarat High Court
Category:Judges of the Jharkhand High Court
Category:Judges of the Madras High Court
Category:20th-century Indian judges
Category:21st-century Indian judges
{{india-law-bio-stub}}