Law Insider India

Legal News, Current Trends and Legal Insight | Supreme Court of India and High Courts

S. ABDUL NAZEER

3 min read

Judge of Supreme Court and former judge of Karnataka High Court

NAME – Syed Abdul Nazeer

PROFESSION- Advocate, Judge

BORN – 05/01/1958

PLACE OF BIRTH – Beluvai, Dakshina Kannada district, Karnataka, India.

FATHER’S NAME – Fakir Saheb

MOTHER’S NAME – Ameedabi

SPOUSE – N/A

SIBLINGS – 5

CHILDREN – N/A

EDUCATION –

B.Com from Mahaveera College, Moodbidri, Karnataka.

Completed his LL.B. from Sri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara Law College,  Mangaluru, Karnataka.

AWARDS – N/A

SPECIALISATION– N/A

COMMITTEE/ PANEL HEADED– N/A

BACKGROUND –

Abdul Nazeer was born into a Muslim family belonging to the Kanara region, which is coastal Karnataka. He grew up in village named Beluvai in Moodbidri district of Karnataka. He is the son of Fakir Saheb and his Mother, Ameedabi passed away on 15/04/2021.

Abdul Nazeer enrolled himself as an advocate in 1983. He started practicing in Karnataka High Court. He was appointed as an additional judge at Karnataka High Court in 2003.

He was elevated as a permanent judge in 2004. On 17/02/2017 he was appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court by Dr. A.P.J Abdul Kalam (former President of India). He became only the third judge ever to be elevated without first becoming the chief justice of some other high court.

CAREER TIMELINE –

1983- Enrolled as an advocate at the Karnataka High Court

2003- Appointed as an additional judge at Karnataka High Court

2004- Became permanent judge at Karnataka High Court

2017 – Appointed as a judge of Supreme Court Of India

LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS-

K.S. Puttaswamy and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors. 2017 –

S. Abdul Nazeer was one of the judges who have passed this judgment. This case was taken up by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court, headed by the then-CJI J. S. Khehar.

The Court ruled that the Right to Privacy was a fundamental right in India, constitutionally protected under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The judgment was interpreted as paving the way for the eventual decriminalization of homosexuality in India.

Kantaru Rajeevaru Vs Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors.

The 9-judge bench ( which includes Abdul Nazeer) headed by SA Bobde ( former Chief Justice of India) hearing the reference of Sabarimala has held that the Supreme Court can refer questions of law to a larger bench while exercising its review jurisdiction.

This bench will discuss whether certain essential religious practices of various faiths, including Islam and Zoroastrianism, should be constitutionally protected or not. The Court also framed 7 questions that are to be decided by the 9-judge bench in the Sabarimala reference which allowed the entry of women of menstruating age (10-50 years) inside the temple.

M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs Vs Mahant Suresh Das & Ors.

The Famous Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute was heard by a 5 judge bench headed by former CJI Ranjan Gogoi. The other judges were S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan, and S.Abdul Nazeer.

The Supreme Court used Article 142 of the Constitution of India and held in the unanimous verdict that the disputed land will be given to Ram Lalla ( Hindus ) and land measuring 5 acres be allotted to the Sunni Central Waqf Board. Nirmohi Akhara’s Appeal was dismissed.

Vineeta Sharma Vs Rakesh Sharma

A 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, S.A. Nazeer, and M.R. Shah held that daughter’s right in coparcenary property is by birth and it is not necessary that the coparcener father should be living when the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 came into force.

If the daughter is alive on the date of enforcement of (Amendment) Act, 2005, she becomes a coparcener with effect from the date of Amendment.

CONTROVERSY

Shayara Bano Vs Union of India

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held by 3:2 majority that the practice of Triple Talaq is unconstitutional since it violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. The Bench comprising of  JS Khehar, former CJI Kurian Joseph, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Uday Umesh Lalit, and Abdul Nazeer.

It was held that the Triple Talaq is manifestly arbitrary because in this form of Talaq the marital ties can be broken whimsically by a Muslim man without any attempt at reconciliation so as to save it. Therefore, Triple Talaq is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Justice Nazeer and the then Chief Justice Khehar dissented with the majority judgment upholding the constitutionality of Triple Talaq.

REMARKABLE ACHIEVEMENTSN/A

More Stories

1 min read
1 min read
1 min read