Vineet Saran

Education and Career as an Advocate

Justice Vineet Saran graduated from Allahabad University in 1976. Subsequently, he obtained an LL.B degree. He practised in the Allahabad High Court from 1980 till 2002 on the constitutional, civil and criminal sides. He also served as the Additional Advocate General for the State of U.P. in the year 1995.

Career As a Judge

Vineet Saran J was appointed as a permanent judge in the Allahabad High Court on February 14th 2002, where he served 13 years. He was then transferred to the Karnataka High Court on February 16th 2015. He was further promoted as the Chief Justice of Orissa High Court on February 26th 2016.

Justice Vineet Saran was elevated to the Supreme Court on August 8th 2018.

Post-Retirement

Shortly before his retirement in May, Justice Saran was appointed as the chairman of the Ravi-Beas Water Tribunal, taking over for Justice Ashok Bhushan who left the post to become the chairman of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in November 2021. 

Following his retirement Justice Saran has been given a number of important appointments. On July 19th, 2022 he was appointed as the Ethics Officer and Ombudsman of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). In August, he sent a conflict of interest notice to Mumbai Indians owner Nita Ambani as she also owns a Reliance subsidiary company, Viacom 18 which had entered into an arrangement with the BCCI for IPL media rights. 

His involvement in sports administration briefly extended to Table Tennis, being appointed as the Returning Officer for the Table Tennis Federation of India (TTFI) by the Delhi HC on October 18th, 2022. However, he was removed from the position after he communicated his non-availability for the TTFI Executive Council election dates.

Notable Judgments

This five-judge Bench in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.(2020) decided on the amount of time goods/service providers can take to respond to complaints filed against them under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Section 13(2)(a) of the Act specifies that parties must reply to complaints within 30 days. While it says that the parties may be granted an extension by the District Forum, it limits such extensions to 15 days.

Authoring the unanimous judgment, Saran J held that Section 13(2)(a) was mandatory. He stated that if the legislature intended it to be merely a directory, it would have included a provision for further extensions.

A five-judge Bench in Sushila Aggarwal v State (NCT of Delhi)(2020) clarified that there is no time limit on when individuals can seek anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). Justice Saran agreed with the majority that there is no statutory time limit on the protection of ‘anticipatory bail’ under Section 438 of the CrPC and that the protection does not automatically expire when an accused is summoned to Court. The judgment observed that it was up to the courts to impose appropriate conditions for anticipatory bail.

Justice Vineet Saran authored the judgment in Pam Developments v State of West Bengal. The two-judge Bench decided on whether the Government has a special status in arbitration proceedings when applying for stay orders. Under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, parties can file a written statement requesting for proceedings to be stayed.

Justice Saran held that the Act does not provide for any special treatment to the Government insofar as stay applications are concerned. He observed that merely because the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 allows for differential treatment to the Government, it does not follow that the Arbitration Act also does.