Although her official retirement date is June 9, 2025, Justice Bela M Trivedi had last working day in the Supreme Court on May 16, concluding a tenure of almost four years..Born in Patan, Gujarat on June 10, 1960, she pursued a combined B.Com–LL.B from the Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda before enrolling with the Bar Council of Gujarat in 1983 and practicing civil and constitutional law for roughly a decade.Appointed directly as a judge of the City Civil and Sessions Court at Ahmedabad on July 10, 1995, she had a tenure of sixteen years before being elevated as a judge of the Gujarat High Court. After a stint at the Rajasthan High Court, she was elevated to the Supreme Court on August 31, 2021—joining Justices BV Nagarathna and Hima Kohli in a historic trio of women judges sworn in simultaneously.By seniority, she is only the eleventh woman to sit on India’s highest court. Over the course of her tenure, she authored dozens of judgments spanning criminal, service, consumer, civil and constitutional matters.Justice Trivedi is not only the first woman from the Gujarat judiciary to be elevated to the Supreme Court, but also a former Law Secretary to the Government of Gujarat—bringing to the bench a rare blend of judicial and executive experience. She also holds the distinction of being featured in the 1996 edition of the Limca Book of Records, as she served as a judge in the sessions court simultaneously with her father.With Justice Trivedi’s tenure drawing to a close on May 16, we take a look at the most significant judgments she was part of..1. Upholding Constitutional validity of EWS reservationCase Title: Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of IndiaIn this case, a five-judge Constitution Bench (by 3:2) upheld the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, 2019 which introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment.Justice Trivedi, who was part of the majority, observed that EWS reservations do not breach the 50 percent ceiling limit on reservations set out in Indra Sawhney (1992), as it only applied to socially and educationally backward classes..2. Reversing the ‘skin to skin’ judgmentCase Title: Attorney General for India v. SatishA three-judge bench had set aside the controversial judgment of the Bombay High Court which held that 'skin-to-skin' contact is necessary for the offence of sexual assault under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.Justice Trivedi, who authored the judgment, stated that restricting 'touch' or 'physical contact' under Section 7 of POCSO is absurd and will destroy the intent of the Act, which is enacted to protect children from sexual offences..3. Advocates not liable under Consumer Protection ActCase Title: Bar of Indian Lawyers Through its President Jasbir Singh Malik v. DK Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable DiseasesThe Court held that advocates cannot be held liable under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (as re-enacted in 2019) for deficiency of services. Justice Trivedi was part of the Bench which held that professionals have to be treated differently from persons carrying out business and trade.Justice Trivedi, who authored the judgment, overruled a 2007 judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which ruled that the services rendered by lawyers are covered under Section 2 (o) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986..4. Marking appearances of lawyersCase Title: Bhagwan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and OthersThe Court held that advocates-on-record (AoR) in a given case must mark the appearance of only those lawyers who are authorised to appear and argue that case on the particular day.The judgment authored by Justice Trivedi was passed in a case where a litigant had denied filing a special leave petition (SLP) and had claimed that he had not hired any of the lawyers to represent him. The Court also directed a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the matter.Calling it a 'fraud committed on courts', the Court highlighted how advocates are often involved in the ill-motivated litigations of dishonest litigants, and assist them in misusing and abusing the process of law to achieve their ulterior purposes..5. Liquidation of Bhushan Power after setting aside JSW's resolution planCase Title: Kalyani Transco v. M/S Bhushan Power and Steel LtdA Bench headed by Justice Trivedi rejected JSW Steel's ₹19,700 crore resolution plan for Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd (BPSL), declaring it illegal, and also directed BPSL's liquidation.In a strongly worded judgment, the Court called JSW's attempt "dishonest and fraudulent", stating that the company had "played smart" and demonstrated mala fide and dishonest intention throughout the insolvency process.JSW Steel had emerged as the successful resolution applicant for BPSL in 2019 after offering to pay over ₹19,000 crore to financial creditors. The matter reached the Supreme Court amid growing concern that JSW Steel had not implemented the plan for the years since approval..6. Refusing to dissolve marriage of aged couple on ground of ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage’Case Title: Dr. Nirmal Singh Panesar v. Mrs. Paramjit Kaur Panesar @ Ajinder Kaur PanesaThe Court refused to grant divorce to a couple aged 89 and 82 years on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.Justice Trivedi, who authored the judgment, held that since the institution of marriage is considered to be a 'pious' and 'spiritual' union in Indian society, a strait-jacket formula for the grant of relief of divorce under Article 142 on the ground of 'irretrievable breakdown of marriage' may not be desirable.The Court refused to grant a decree of divorce since the wife had expressed her willingness to take care of her husband and informed the Court that she did not wish to die with the label of being a 'divorced woman'..7. Setting aside bail granted to Wadhawan brothers in DHFL caseCase Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Kapil WadhawanThe Court set aside the default bail granted to DHFL promoters Kapil and Dheeraj Wadhawan in the case related to an alleged multi-crore loan scam.Justice Trivedi, who authored the judgment, held that the Wadhawans could not claim the statutory right of default bail on the ground that the investigation is pending against other accused..8. Setting aside bail granted to 8 PFI members in UAPA caseCase Title: Union of India v. BarkatullahA bench of which Justice Trivedi was part set aside the Madras High Court order granting bail to 8 men allegedly belonging to the banned Popular Front of India (PFI) after they were charged under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).Justice Trivedi held that the restrictions imposed upon the civil liberties of individuals or associations accused under the UAPA are done in the larger interest of maintaining the sovereignty and integrity of India..9. Denying bail to AAP leader Satyendar JainCase Title: Satyendar Kumar Jain v. Directorate of EnforcementThe Court declined to grant bail to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyendar Jain in a money laundering case. It also cancelled the interim bail granted to him and asked Jain to surrender forthwith.Justice Trivedi, who authored the judgment, noted that Jain was responsible for accommodation entries totalling to ₹4.81 crore received through Kolkata-based entry operators in the bank accounts of four companies owned by him and his family..Notable dissents.10. Sub-classification of Scheduled CasteCase Title: State of Punjab v. Davinder SinghIn this case, a seven-judge Constitution Bench (by 6:1) held that sub-division of the Scheduled Caste (SC) community to provide reservation to the weakest out of the weak is permissible.The majority had overruled the EV Chinnaiah judgment of 2004 which held that sub-classification is not permissible.Justice Trivedi, the lone dissenter, held that the etymological history of the term “Scheduled Caste” made it clear that the SC community formed a “homogeneous class”. She further held that Indra Sawhney was only concerned with the ambit of backward classes under Article 16(4), and hence recognised sub-classification only within OBCs, and not SCs or STs.It was her view that only Parliament can exercise its own right to include or exclude any caste, race or tribe from list under Article 341(2)..11. Retrospective applicability of Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988Case Title: Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. State of Andhra PradeshA division bench delivered a split verdict on a plea by former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu for quashing a first information report (FIR) in the skill development scam case.The judges disagreed on the applicability of Section 17A of PC Act. While Justice Aniruddha Bose said there can be retrospective applicability of the said provision, Justice Trivedi disagreed.She held that prior sanction requirements under Section 17A were required to be treated as substantive, and not merely procedural in nature. She added that such a substantive amendment could not be made applicable retrospectively to offences contained in provisions like Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d)..12. Right of accused to receive list of materials in possession of prosecutionCase Title: P Ponnusamy v. State of Tamil NaduA three-judge bench (by a 2:1 majority) held that an accused has the right to receive the list of the statements, documents, material, etc in the possession of the prosecution even if Draft Rules of Criminal Practice are not yet adopted. Justice Trivedi, who wrote the dissenting opinion, observed that this right is available only after the Draft Rules are brought into force.In her judgment, Justice Trivedi held that the prosecution is expected to comply with the Draft Rule no. 4 pertaining to the supply of documents, only when the said set of Draft Rules are adopted by the High Courts and State Governments, giving them a statutory force..13. Candidates submitting category certificate after cut-off dateCase Title: Sakshi Arha v. Rajasthan High CourtA division bench delivered a split judgment in a matter pertaining to the Rajasthan High Court denying appointment of applicants to the post of civil judge on the ground that they had submitted their category certificates beyond the cut-off date.Justice Ajay Rastogi quashed the order of the Rajasthan High Court and invoked powers under Article 142 to grant relief, while Justice Trivedi concluded that the appellants who are the defaulters could not be given preferential treatment by accepting the certificates produced by them as valid, though the same were obtained by them after the last date for the submission.After this split, the matter was heard by a three-judge bench, which eventually sided with the opinion of Justice Trivedi and refused to grant relief to defaulter candidates..Anadi Tewari is a Law Clerk-cum-Research Associate at the Supreme Court of India. He can be reached on Linkedln here.