Joymalya Bagchi

Early life and education 

Justice Joymalya Bagchi was born in Kolkata on 3 October 1966. He completed his schooling at the Calcutta Boys’ School. He then pursued his law at the Calcutta University and graduated with an LL. B. in in 1991

Career as an advocate

Justice Bagchi enrolled as an advocate of the Calcutta High Court the same year, on 28 November 1991 and began practising at the Calcutta High Court.

He argued in significant criminal and constitutional law cases across High Courts and the Supreme Court. Notably, in Sujato Bhadra v State Of West Bengal, 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 represented human rights organisations and advocated for civil liberties and environmental protection. He also served as an advocate for the Union of India, the State of West Bengal, and key corporations like the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Kolkata Port Trust.

Alongside his practice, he was actively involved in legal education. He taught as a part-time lecturer at the Calcutta University and Jogesh Chandra Choudhury College of Law. He was also a guest lecturer at the W.B. National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata. 

Career as a Judge

Justice Bagchi was appointed as a judge of the Calcutta High Court on 27 June 2011 and transferred to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 4 January 2021. He was repatriated to the Calcutta High Court on 8 November 2021.

At the Calcutta High Court he was the Chairperson of the committee which prepared the Annual Report of the High Court in 2023 and 2024. 

On 6 March 2025, the Supreme Collegium, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna recommended his name for elevation to the top court. Interestingly, Justice Bagchi was ranked 11th in the combined all-India seniority of high court judges, including chief justices. However, the Collegium took into account the need for representation for the Calcutta High Court in recommending him. The Union notified his appointment on 10 March 2025, and he assumed Office on 18 March 2025.

His elevation makes him the second judge at the top court from the Calcutta High Court, after Justice Dipankar Datta. His appointment brings the sitting strength of the Supreme Court to 33 against the sanctioned strength of 34 judges.

Justice Bagchi will have a tenure of over six years at the Supreme Court. If the seniority principle is followed, he is set to become the 59th Chief Justice of India (CJI) in May 2031 upon the retirement of Justice K.V. Viswanathan. Justice Bagchi will be the first CJI from Calcutta since Justice Altamas Kabir, who retired in 2013. 

He will have a tenure of over six years at the top court and will retire on 2 October 2031. 

Notable Judgements 

In State of West Bengal v Saiful Ali (2023), a Division Bench of Justices Ajay Kumar Gupta and Bagchi held that the Trial Court erred in awarding death penalty with reference to gravity of the offence alone. An Additional District & Sessions Judge had sentenced the appellants convicted of rape and murder to death. On appeal, the Gupta-Bagchi bench set it aside, reasoning that the State had not proven conspiracy and shared common intention beyond a reasonable doubt, rendering the death penalty unwarranted.

“A balance sheet must be drawn between the aggravating and mitigating factors and after giving due weightage to both, if the Court comes to a conclusion that there is no possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the convict and the alternate sentence of life imprisonment is wholly foreclosed, death penalty may be imposed,” Justice Bagchi wrote.

In Samsuddin Sk. v State of West Bengal (2023), a Division Bench of Justices Gaurang Kanth and Bagchi upheld the life sentences of the appellants while declining to impose the death penalty in a case of rape and murder of a minor girl. Justice Bagchi, writing for the bench, emphasised that while the heinous nature of the crime was undeniable, courts must ensure that capital punishment is reserved for the “rarest of rare” cases where reformation and rehabilitation are wholly foreclosed. 

The Court observed that the appellants’ conduct during their 17 years of incarceration indicated a possibility of reformation, making life imprisonment the appropriate punishment. The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the life sentences, allowing a set-off for the detention period already served.