Justice P.B. Bajanthri, who served as the 46th Chief Justice of the Patna High Court, retired after a brief tenure of just one month, marking one of the shortest terms in the court’s recent judicial history.
Justice Pavankumar Bhimappa Bajanthri assumed the role of Chief Justice of the Patna High Court as its 46th Chief Justice in September 2025. His legal career, which began in the 1990s, showcases his significant contributions both as an Advocate and a Judge. As he approaches retirement, we reflect on his key career milestones and noteworthy judgments.
Born on October 23, 1963, Justice Bajanthri received his education at Vidhyavardhaka Sangha, K.L.E. Society, and S.J.R.C. Law College in Bangalore.
He started his legal journey by enrolling as an Advocate in 1990, practicing in the Karnataka High Court, KAT, CAT, and various educational authorities. Between 1993 and 1994, he served as the KPSC Standing Counsel and was appointed as a Notary by the Government of India in May 2006.
Also Read: Flimsy, Childish and Baseless: Sonam Wangchuk’s Wife Slams NSA Detention
Justice Bajanthri’s judicial career commenced on January 2, 2015, when he was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Karnataka High Court.
He was transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court on March 16, 2015, before being re-transferred to the Karnataka High Court on November 17, 2018. He subsequently moved to the Patna High Court, taking his oath on October 20, 2021.
Earlier, On September 11, 2025, the Collegium recommended his appointment as the next Chief Justice of Patna High Court, and the Ministry of Law and Justice officially notified his appointment on September 20, 2025, under Article 217(1) of the Constitution.
Notable Judgments
- Patna High Court Stops AI-Generated Video of PM Modi
In a civil writ petition concerning an AI-generated video of PM Narendra Modi and his late mother, the Division Bench, led by Justice Bajanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha, ruled against its circulation, emphasizing that such actions cannot be tolerated in a constitutional democracy that upholds dignity, liberty, and fraternity.
[Vivekanand Singh v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Pat 2933] - Rectification of GSTR 3B Permitted
In a civil writ petition regarding the rectification of form GSTR 3B, the Division Bench allowed the amendment after referencing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs v. Aberdare Technologies Pvt. Ltd., which affirmed the right to rectify clerical errors.
[Om Traders v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Pat 2148] - Minor Wife’s Custody Denied to Husband
In a criminal writ application, the court ruled that a minor could not be released into her husband’s custody, affirming her lawful stay at a State Girls Care Home.
[Nitish Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine Pat 274] - Divorce Granted Due to Mental Cruelty
Addressing a divorce petition, the court concluded that false allegations of infidelity by one spouse constituted mental cruelty, leading to the dissolution of marriage.
[Alok Bharti v. Jyoti Raj, 2023 SCC OnLine Pat 6254] - Inability to Bear Children Not Grounds for Divorce
In a divorce appeal, the court dismissed the petition, stating that the inability to bear children does not constitute valid grounds for marriage dissolution.
[X v. Y, 2023 SCC OnLine Pat 2247] - State’s Obligation to Provide Medical Facilities
The court considered whether the state must compensate families of Thalassemia patients who died due to inadequate medical facilities, ultimately directing the formation of a committee to assess the situation.
[Amit Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2777] - Compassionate Appointment Criteria Reinforced
The court reiterated that compassionate appointments aim to alleviate financial hardships caused by a family member’s sudden death while in service, emphasizing the need for immediate crisis intervention.
[Amrik Singh v. Union of India, 2015 SCC OnLine P&H 14672] - Compulsory Retirement Clarified
The court ruled that compulsory retirement should not be equated with dismissal or termination, emphasizing that it allows employees to retain certain benefits.
[K.L. Vig v. Canara Bank, 2018 SCC OnLine P&H 8316] - Scope of Regulatory Enquiries Defined
The court clarified that the scope of Regulation 60-A of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 pertains solely to the continuation and conclusion of inquiries against serving employees.
[Mary v. John Bernard Mascarenhas Business, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 5155] - Definition of Desertion in Marriage
The court defined ‘desertion’ as the intentional abandonment of one spouse by another without consent, underscoring the obligations inherent in marriage.
[Renuka v. Sangappa, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3112] - Immediate Termination Violates Service Law Principles
Ruling on a termination case, the court stated that immediate termination without a disciplinary inquiry contradicts statutory service law principles.
[K.S. Puttaswamy v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 1631] - Regularization of Contractual Employees
The court dismissed a petition for regularization of service, indicating that such rights depend on the express or implied terms of appointment.
[Preethi Bhandage v. State of Karnataka, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 685] - Advancing Justice Under Article 226
The court emphasized that the power under Article 226 is meant to promote justice and prevent injustice, rather than serve as an appellate authority.
[Devas Multimedia P. Ltd. v. Pr. CIT, (2019) 419 ITR 391]
These judgments reflect Justice Bajanthri’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and protecting citizens’ rights throughout his judicial tenure.