Hima Kohli

Early life and education

Justice Hima Kohli was born on 2 September 1959 in Delhi. She completed her primary education at St Thomas School, Delhi. She graduated with an undergraduate and postgraduate degree in history from St. Stephen’s College, Delhi University. 

Justice Kohli pursued her law degree from Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi. Reportedly, her motivation to join law school was to obtain access to a library card to prepare for the civil services examination. However, her fascination for the subject motivated her to pursue it full time. She graduated with an LLB degree in 1984 and enrolled as an Advocate at the Delhi Bar Council the same year. 

 Career as an Advocate

Early in her career, Justice Kohli joined the Chambers of Sunanda Bhandare, who later became the youngest woman judge of the Delhi High Court. Later, she joined the Chambers of Y.K. Sabherwal, who went on to become the Chief Justice of India in 2005. Justice Kohli then practised under Virendra Jain who was elevated as a Delhi High Court judge in 1992. From then on, she practised independently.

In 1999, she was appointed as Standing Counsel for the New Delhi Municipal Council at the Delhi High Court. After holding this position for five years, she was appointed as an Additional Standing Counsel for civil cases for the Government of NCT Delhi in 2004. During this time, she advised various private and public enterprises, including Delhi Pollution Control Committee, National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India and National Cooperative Development Corporation. 

Justice Kohli was also a member of the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. During this time, she worked closely with Justice M.K. Sharma, a former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court.

Career as a Judge

In 2006, she was elevated as an Additional Judge at the Delhi High Court. On 29 August 2008, she became a Permanent Judge of the High Court. She was a part of various committees that looked into legal aid, decongestion of jails and mediation. She was also appointed as the Chairperson for the Delhi Judicial Academy and Delhi State Legal Services Authority on 11 March and 20 May 2020 respectively. 

In 2021, she was sworn in as the Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court. She was the first woman Chief Justice of this Court.

After Justice Indu Malhotra retired from the Supreme Court in March 2021, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended Justices Kohli, B.V. Nagarathna and Bela M. Trivedi to be elevated as judges to the Supreme Court. Almost five months later, on 31 August 2021, all three women judges were elevated to the Supreme Court.

On 31 May 2024, Justice Kohli was appointed as the Chairperson of the Supreme Court’s newly reconstituted gender sensitisation and internal complaints committee.

In legal education

Justice Kohli has previously served as a chancellor to NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, and has served on the executive council of the university. She has also served on the executive council of the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata.

Tenure at the Supreme Court in numbers

Justice Kohli authored 40 judgements and was a part of 208 benches during her three year tenure at the Supreme Court

Figure 2 indicates that Justice Kohli majorly authored judgements in criminal matters (32%) followed by service matters (20%), narcotics matters (8%) and arbitration (6%) matters.

Notable judgements

Justice Kohli was part of a five-judge Constitution Bench which held that sexual minorities in India did not have the fundamental right to marry. The case concerned the legal recognition of same sex marriage in India and the constitutionality of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA). On 17 October 2023, the Bench unanimously held that LGBTQIA+ persons did not have the right to marry under the SMA. Justice Kohli joined Justice S.R. Bhat’s majority opinion which held that the Court could not compel the State to create social or legal status around marriage. They also disagreed with the minority opinions delivered by Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and S.K. Kaul who had held that queer persons have a right to enter into a civil union. The majority reasoned that to create new social institutions, a “new universe of rights and obligations” had to be created. They also upheld the constitutionality of the SMA by stating that SMA’s “sole intention” was to facilitate interfaith marriages, not non-heterosexual unions.

On 11 October 2023, Justice Kohli, as part of a Division Bench with Justice Nagarathna, delivered a split verdict on a married woman’s plea for medical termination of her 26-week pregnancy, with the Centre resolved to save the “unborn child.” Justice Nagarathna permitted the termination, holding that a woman’s socio-economic interests and mental health must be considered. However, Justice Kohli relied on an email from a medical board doctor stating that the foetus had a healthy chance of survival, which was submitted by the Union government. She noted that her “judicial conscience” did not permit her to allow the termination of the petitioner’s pregnancy. Subsequently, the case was heard by a three-judge bench led by CJI Chandrachud. On 16 October 2023, the bench rejected the petitioner’s plea for abortion noting that there was no danger to the mother and no substantial foetal abnormalities. The case has been criticised as a step back for abortion law in India. 

On 11 May 2023, Justice Kohli was part of a five-judge Constitution Bench which delivered a unanimous decision upholding the powers of the Delhi government to control civil servants and the day-to-day administration of the NCT of Delhi. The Bench noted that the Government of NCT of Delhi must have control over administrative officers otherwise the powers of the democratically elected government would be diluted. 

On 19 July 2022, Justice Kohli was part of a Division Bench which noted that confessional statements made under Section 67 of the Narcotics, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, were inadmissible. Section 67 gives a police officer senior in rank to peon, sepoy or constable, the power to “call for information” from any person, or “examine any person acquainted with facts and circumstances” while investigating an NDPS offence. The Court relied on another Division Bench judgement in Tofan Singh v State of Tamil Nadu (2020) to hold that confessional statements recorded under Section 67 were inadmissible.