JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
Date of Birth : 3 October 1966
Assumed Office : 18th Mar, 2025
Retires on : 2nd Oct, 2031
Early Life and Education
Justice Joymalya Bagchi was born in Kolkata on 3 October 1966. He completed his schooling at Calcutta Boys’ School before pursuing a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) at Calcutta University, graduating in 1991.
Career as an Advocate
Justice Bagchi enrolled as an advocate at the Calcutta High Court on 28 November 1991 and began practicing there.
Throughout his legal career, he argued significant cases in criminal and constitutional law across various High Courts and the Supreme Court. A notable case was Sujato Bhadra v. State of West Bengal, where he successfully challenged the West Bengal government’s ban on Taslima Nasreen’s book Dwikhondito before a Special Bench of the Calcutta High Court.
Justice Bagchi also represented human rights organizations, advocating for civil liberties and environmental protection. He served as counsel for the Union of India, the State of West Bengal, and major public institutions such as the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Kolkata Port Trust.
Alongside his legal practice, he contributed to legal education. He taught as a part-time lecturer at Calcutta University and Jogesh Chandra Choudhury College of Law. Additionally, he was a guest lecturer at the W.B. National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS), Kolkata.
Career as a Judge
Justice Bagchi was appointed as a judge of the Calcutta High Court on 27 June 2011. He was later transferred to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 4 January 2021 but was repatriated to the Calcutta High Court on 8 November 2021.
At the Calcutta High Court, he served as the Chairperson of the committee responsible for preparing the Annual Reports of the High Court in 2023 and 2024.
On 6 March 2025, the Supreme Collegium, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, recommended his elevation to the Supreme Court of India. Despite being ranked 11th in all-India seniority among high court judges, the Collegium emphasized the need for representation from the Calcutta High Court. The Union Government notified his appointment on 10 March 2025, and he assumed office on 18 March 2025.
His appointment made him the second judge from the Calcutta High Court at the Supreme Court, following Justice Dipankar Datta. With his elevation, the sitting strength of the Supreme Court increased to 33 against the sanctioned strength of 34 judges.
Justice Bagchi will serve at the Supreme Court for over six years and is expected to become the 59th Chief Justice of India (CJI) in May 2031, succeeding Justice K.V. Viswanathan. His appointment marks the return of a Calcutta High Court judge as CJI after Justice Altamas Kabir, who retired in 2013. Justice Bagchi will retire on 2 October 2031.
Notable Judgments
- State of West Bengal v. Saiful Ali (2023)
A Division Bench comprising Justices Ajay Kumar Gupta and Joymalya Bagchi ruled that a Trial Court erred in awarding the death penalty based solely on the gravity of the offence. The Additional District & Sessions Judge had sentenced the appellants convicted of rape and murder to death.
On appeal, the Gupta-Bagchi Bench overturned the death sentence, holding that the State failed to prove conspiracy and shared common intention beyond a reasonable doubt, making the death penalty unjustified.
Justice Bagchi emphasized:
“A balance sheet must be drawn between the aggravating and mitigating factors. After giving due weightage to both, if the Court concludes that there is no possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the convict and the alternative sentence of life imprisonment is wholly foreclosed, only then may the death penalty be imposed.”
ALSO READ:Justice Joymalya Bagchi & CJI Sanjiv Khanna: Superseding Senior Judges in SC Appointments
- Samsuddin Sk. v. State of West Bengal (2023)
A Division Bench of Justices Gaurang Kanth and Joymalya Bagchi upheld the life sentences of the appellants in a case of rape and murder of a minor girl, while rejecting the death penalty.
Justice Bagchi, writing for the Bench, acknowledged the heinous nature of the crime but stressed that capital punishment must be reserved for the “rarest of rare” cases where reformation and rehabilitation are wholly impossible.
Observing the appellants’ conduct during 17 years of incarceration, the Court ruled that
” there was a possibility of reformation, making life imprisonment the appropriate sentence. The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the life sentences, allowing a set-off for the detention period already served”
READ MORE REPORTS ON JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE