“I always believed that when you are a judge you should not do anything to make your presence felt. Your success will be counted if your absence if felt if you demit office.”
– Justice Oka
When a judge takes the oath before the Constitution of India, they pledge to uphold its values and safeguard the fundamental rights of every citizen. This solemn duty binds the judiciary at every level—from the Supreme Court to the district courts—and in India it is perhaps the magistrate, who is working closest to the people, who truly embodies the idea of a ‘people’s judge’.
Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, who started his practice from Thane District Court, Mumbai was born on May 25, 1960, is a distinguished figure in the Indian judiciary, renowned for his legal expertise and dedication to justice. Initially pursuing a career in engineering after earning a BSc from Mumbai University, he shifted to law, influenced by his father, a prominent lawyer.
Enrolled as an advocate in 1983, he later specialised in civil, constitutional, and service matters at the Bombay High Court. His career took a significant turn in 2003 when he was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court, eventually rising to become a Permanent Judge in 2005. In 2019, he was appointed Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court before his elevation to the Supreme Court in 2021.
On 23 May, Justice Oka of the Hon’ble Supreme Court demitted office after serving the Hon’ble Supreme Court for four years and during his tenure, he not only gave speeches or lectures, but actually implemented those lectures and works in his judgments.
Even after losing his mother a day before - Justice Oka came to court to serve and pronounce 10 judgments. That’s his legacy—etched in law & conscience
Justice Oka’s judgments reflect his commitment to social justice and administrative accountability. He has ruled on critical issues such as the right to protest, the prohibition of manual scavenging, and the protection of Scheduled Castes and Tribes. His decisions often underscored the importance of secularism and the inviolable right to legal representation. By leveraging judicial intervention during crises, Justice Oka demonstrated a profound belief in the judiciary’s role as a guardian of constitutional rights. His legacy is one of unwavering dedication to upholding the rule of law and fostering equitable social change.
It is not rare, but certainly exceptional, to encounter judges who speak their minds through their judgments. Justice Abhay S Oka was one such judge with an unwavering spine, who viewed the law through the constitutional lens and staunchly defended the liberties enshrined in Part III of the Constitution.
Whether it was easing bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), ensuring recording of Section 313 CrPC examinations/statements through video conferencing during the pandemic, or safeguarding fundamental rights, his judgments left an indelible mark on every sphere of justice.
Let us discuss some of the important judgments, rulings, and judicial interventions – that will forever stand as pillars of his legacy—safeguarding our fundamental freedoms, from speech to liberty, for generations to come.
Privacy Before Privacy
In the judgment of, Sheikh Zahid Mukhtar v State of Maharashtra, a division bench led by Justice Oka struck down two amendments to the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act of 1976. While upholding the constitutionality of the rest of the amendments, the Court declared section 5D (which talks about incriminating possession of flesh of any cow, bull, or bullock slaughtered outside the state of Maharashtra) and Section 9B (casting negative burden on the accused concerned) in violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
It is pertinent to point out that in the said judgment, the Court held that privacy is a part of personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The judgment was also significant for the fact that it was delivered way before KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India was delivered, in which right to privacy was recognised as a fundamental right by the Supreme Court.
It held as follows:
“We hold that right to privacy is a part of the personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. We hold that Section 5D infringes the right of privacy which is part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore, it is liable to be struck down."
A Champion of Free Speech and Constitutional Fairness
We are in times when justice depends from bench to bench and not court to court, because we have seen instances and verdicts where judges of the same courts have differed of the same principles of law, whether it is about grant of bail, right to freedom of speech, UAPA etc.
Justice Oka has been a champion of free speech and personal liberty, for instance when anti-CAA protests were going on across the country – then Section 144 was imposed in Bangaluru in December 2019. A bench led by Chief Justice Abhay Oka in Sowmya R Reddy vs State of Karnataka and Ors, held that the Section 144 order was illegal and said that “the violation of fundamental right to hold peaceful protests, which is a basic feature of democracy, cannot be taken lightly by a writ court.”
The Court said that a test of legality of a prohibitory order under Section 144 of Code of Criminal Procedure is not one of "mere technicality" but was a "matter of substance”.
It was held that “we have no manner of doubt that the impugned order is ex-facie illegal in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Anuradha Bhasin and Ram Lila Maidan…In fact on first principles, the impugned order is completely illegal. The illegality cannot be cured or tolerated even after giving necessary latitude. Therefore, we have no option but to hold that the exercise of powers under sub-section (1) of Section 144 of the said Code by passing the impugned order was illegal.”
There was a PIL filed against a viral video where a teacher, Tripta Tyagi was instructing students to slap a 7-year-old Muslim boy and making communal derogatory remarks against the minor boy. In Tushar Gandhi vs State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court passed detailed instructions to the educational institutes, schools which have been underscoring the importance of inculating constitutional values – as equality, secularism and fraternity amongst students.
The division bench of Justice Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan asked the Uttar Pradesh government to bear the primary responsibility for the educational expenses of the minor boy who was the victim of the 2023 Muzaffarnagar student slapping incident. The Court clarified that the state must cover tuition fees, the cost of uniforms, books, and transport charges until the child completes his school education.
In another significant ruling, when Justice Oka was serving as a judge of the Bombay High Court, he held that there is a complete freedom for every individual to decide whether he wants to adopt or profess any religion or not.
In the judgment of Dr Ranjeet Suryakant Mohite vs Union of India, Justice Oka briefly and beautifully summed up the intent and contours of Article 25 observed that “freedom of conscience under Art 25 of the Constitution encompasses in itself a freedom to an individual to take a view that he does not belong to any religion. The freedom conferred by Art.25 of the Constitution also includes a right of an individual to claim that he is an 'Atheist'. As the freedom of conscience confers a fundamental right to entertain a religious belief, it also confers a right on an individual to express an opinion that he does not belong to any religion.”
While giving a lecture at Columbia Law School on the topic of Hate Speech, Justice Oka opined that the provisions regarding hate speeches or provisions which make certain speeches or utterances or spoken or written words as offences – those provisions cannot be abused or misused to prevent people from expressing their views, expressing their dissent.'
While quashing a case against a professor for his WhatsApp status criticising abrogation of Article 370 – describing it as a black day for Jammu and Kashmir, a division bench of Justice Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan in Javed Ahmad Hajam vs State of Maharashtra, held that criticising abrogation of J&K and wishing Pakistanis on their Independence Day is not an offence.
“Every citizen of India has a right to be critical of the action of abrogation of Article 370 and the change of status of Jammu and Kashmir. Describing the day the abrogation happened as a 'Black Day' is an expression of protest and anguish. If every criticism or protest of the actions of the State is to be held as an offence under Section 153-A, democracy, which is an essential feature of the Constitution of India, will not survive.” the court held
In one of the cases, in the judgement of Sanjay Ananda Salve vs State of Maharashtra and Ors, a bench led by Justice Oka of the Bombay High Court had set-aside the suspension of a school teacher who was charged for not folding his hands during the prayer session at the school. The Court not only set-aside the said punishment and said that such action does not amount to misconduct.
Reconstructing Bail Jurisprudence: Bail Not Jail
In matters pertaining to UAPA and other serious offences where activists, industrialists and academicians were charged arbitrarily – bail was a mini trial itself.
A bench led by Justice Oka in the judgment of Jalaluddin Khan vs Union of India, held that even in cases like UAPA bail is the rule, and jail is an exception.
Justice Oka reaffirmed that "Bail is the rule and jail is an exception" is a settled legal principle, emphasising that this rule applies even in cases involving stringent bail conditions under special statutes. The only caveat is that bail must comply with the statutory requirements. The Court further clarified that once a case meets the criteria for granting bail, the Court cannot refuse it and observed that denying bail in deserving cases would violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
In Parvinder Singh Khurana vs Directorate of Enforcement, a division bench of Justices Oka and Masih held that bail orders should not be normally stayed.
The Court set-aside the order of the Delhi High Court which had stayed the bail granted in a money laundering matter – and the court also laid down guidelines and held that ‘bail should be only stayed in exceptional’ cases.
"Liberty granted to an accused under the order granting bail cannot be lightly and causally interfered with by mechanically granting an exparte order of stay of the bail order...Moreover, since the issue involved is of the accused's right to liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution, if an exparte stay is granted, by issuing a short notice to the accused, the Court must immediately hear him on the continuation of the stay", the court held.
Ruling on Anganwadi Workers' Rights to Gratuity
In the significant judgment of Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya vs District Development Officer Dahod, a bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Oka underscored the indispensable role played by Anganwadi workers and helpers at the grassroots level.
The court unanimously held that these workers are entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, delivering separate but concurring opinions. Both judges emphasised that Anganwadi workers perform critical functions, including providing food security to children (aged six months to six years), pregnant women, and lactating mothers, as well as delivering pre-school education. Despite their vital contributions, they receive minimal remuneration and negligible benefits.
The judgment highlighted the systemic challenges faced by Anganwadi workers, particularly their exclusion from civil post status, which denies them a regular salary and other employment benefits available to state employees.
Instead, they receive a nominal "honorarium"—far below minimum wages—under the pretext of being part-time voluntary workers with limited working hours. The court rejected this justification, recognising their substantial contributions and affirming their right to statutory benefits like gratuity.
On Right to Shelter & the Illegality of Demolitions
In the case of Zulfiquar Haider and Anr vs State of UP and Ors, a bench of Justices Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan directed the Prayagraj Development Authority to pay Rs 10 lakh each as compensation to around 6 individuals who were the victim of illegal/arbitrary demolition.
While calling the act of demolition as ‘inhumane and illegal’ the Court said that authorities must always remember that right to shelter is an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court came down heavily on the government of Uttar Pradesh for the demolition and reminded them that there is ‘something called as Article 21'.
“These shock our conscience. There is something called the right to shelter, something called due process".Justice Oka
The Fotprints Left Behind
Justice Oka was a judge who championed liberty through the constitutional prism. We are living in times when everything is becoming accessible – from court proceedings on X to live proceedings on YouTube. There is definitely a sense of transparency if we see it from the outer sphere – but there are instances where the bench and the judges on that bench make all the difference.
In a nutshell, at times – justice depends from bench to bench and not from court to court.
For instance - on the same day when a SIT was constituted by a bench led by Justice Surya Kant against Professor Ali Mahmudabad of Ashoka University for his ‘alleged offensive opinion’ for which an FIR was lodged against him, the court said that simple language should be used while putting forward your opinion – without hurting anyone’s sentiments.
"When the choice of words is deliberately made to insult, humiliate or cause discomfort to other persons, the learned professor cannot have the lack of dictionary words...he could convey the very same feelings in a simple language without hurting others. Have some respect for the sentiments of others. Use simple and neutral kind of language, respecting others."Justice Kant
In another court, where Justice Oka was heading the bench, it granted bail to PFI Secretary in Abdul Sathar vs Union of India & Anr.
He flagged the State’s attempt to justify Sathar's prolonged detention based on his ideological affiliations. Taking exception to the submission that Sathar should remain in jail to prevent future offences, the Court said:
“This is the trend we find. It is because they have adopted a particular ideology (they are put in jail). For ideology you cannot put someone in jail."
Justice Oka will be remembered not only for his judgments, but also for his approach towards the constitution and reading through the statutes in a harmonious manner – to balance fundamental rights and ‘restrictions’ equally. A judge – who restructured the bail jurisprudence in special statutes like UAPA and reinforced the principle of bail not jail.
He always appealed to the young members of the bar to take up pro bono cases which will ultimately act as an award. For young lawyers like myself, his departure feels like a personal loss.
Judges like Justice Oka are rare—some provide relief, some etch their names in history, and some serve as guiding lights for the next generation to learn, adapt, and carry forward their legacy. He was all three. His unwavering commitment to placing liberty above all else was not just rhetoric in speeches but a principle firmly embedded in his judicial reasoning.
As we bid farewell to Justice Oka, we remember a jurist who didn’t just lecture about constitutional values—he lived them through his judgments. His legacy is a reminder that the judiciary’s greatest strength lies in its courage to uphold freedom, even when the tide turns against it.
(Areeb Uddin Ahmed is an advocate practicing at the Allahabad High Court. He writes on various legal developments. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)