Chandramauli Kumar Prasad

Early life and education

Justice C.K. Prasad undertook school education at Patna High School, from where he passed Secondary School Examination. After graduating in Science from Magadh University, Justice Prasad chose to study the noble stream of law and graduated in Law from Patna University in 1973. Justice Prasad is married to Mrs. Madhu Rukhaiyar and has three children, two sons and a daughter.

Career

Justice Prasad began his career by enrolling as an Advocate on November 27, 1973 with the Bar Council of Bihar. He practiced in Civil, Constitutional, Criminal and Service matters at the High Court of judicature at Patna, Bihar and was designated as a Senior Advocate on July 17, 1989. He was appointed as the Additional Advocate General of the State of Bihar on 14.12.1993. He was elevated as a permanent Judge of the Patna High Court on November 08, 1994 and was transferred to the Madhya Pradesh High Court on November 21, 1994 from where he was transferred back to Patna High Court on September 10, 2001. He was appointed as the acting Chief Justice of Patna High Court from March 03, 2008 to May 12, 2008 and from December 17, 2008 to March 15, 2009. He took oath as the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court on March 20, 2009 and was elevated as a Judge, Supreme Court of India on February 08, 2010 from where he superannuated on 14.7.2014. Thereafter he was appointed Chairman of the Press Council of India on 25.11.2014. Justice Prasad has held various offices including the office of the Vice-President of the English Speaking Union of Commonwealth and the President of the Patna Golf Club. He is also a visiting professor in G.D.Goenka College. He served as the Chairman of the Bihar State Judicial Academy and Member of the Advisory Board to consider the cases of detention under preventive law of the State of Madhya Pradesh and Chairman of the Advisory Board for such cases in Bihar. He is an experienced arbitrator who has done a large number of arbitrations involving Govt. of India and foreign companies.

Publications

Justice Prasad is the revising author of the 22nd edition of legal classic Ratanlal and Dhirajlal – Code of Criminal Procedure along with Advocate Namit Saxena.

He is also the revising author of the 19th edition of Mulla – Code of Civil Procedure alongwith Justice Deepak Verma and Advocate Namit Saxena.Both books have been published by reputed publisher Lexis Nexis India .

Notable judgments and opinions

• As champion of civil liberty, in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [(2014) 8 SCC 273], Justice Prasad gave a landmark ruling and very strongly pointed out the blatant misuse of the Sec.498A of IPC in India. Justice Prasad held that no arrest should be made only because the offence is non-bailable and cognizable. Neither should arrest be made in a routine, casual and cavalier manner or on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. Arrest should only be made after reasonable satisfaction reached after due investigation as to the genuineness of the allegation. The Hon’ble Court discussed Sec. 41(1) of Cr.P.C. in great detail, and emphasized that for making arrest the police must be satisfied that all the conditions set out in the provision are met. The Hon’ble Court also condemned the mechanical manner in which the police give reasons for remand reproduce the reasons in every case, and the casual manner in which the magistrates grant it.

• In Vishwa Lochan Madan v. Union of India [(2014) 7 SCC 707], a bench lead by Justice Prasad held that fatwas and shariat court decisions were not legally enforceable.

• In the case concerning attacks in the city of Mumbai on 26.11.2011; Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra [(2012) 9 SCC 1], Justice Prasad affirmed that the conspiracy for the terrorist activity was hatched certainly in Pakistan while carving out an exception for the settled principle of ‘certain probability’ in criminal jurisprudence.

• In Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik and Anr. (2014) 2 SCC 576), Justice Prasad authored that when there is a conflict between a conclusive proof envisaged under law and a proof based on scientific advancement accepted by the world community to be correct, the latter must prevail over the former.

Controversies

A controversy was sought to be raised in respect of an order passed by him according permission to withdraw an appeal by some disgruntled lawyer. The order so passed has been affirmed in review and the curative petition by a bench of five judges of the Supreme Court.