Justice Indra Prasanna Mukerji was born on 6-9-1963, into a family of lawyers. Both his father and paternal grandfather were barristers and senior Advocates at the Calcutta High Court, while his maternal grandfather served as a senior lawyer at the Kanpur District Court1. Hence, his roots on the knowledge of law ran deep.
As Justice I.P Mukerji prepares to bid adieu to the hallowed halls of Meghalaya High Court on 5-9-2025, we look through his extensive career in law and how his legal acumen and wisdom were reflected in the cases he decided as a Judge.
Education and Career as Advocate
He received his education at St. Xavier’s School and College in Calcutta, later obtaining LL.B. degrees from the University of Calcutta and the University of London through external examination. He was enrolled as an advocate on 2-7-1990, practicing at the Calcutta High Court with a focus on civil law, particularly in revenue and arbitration matters.
Justice Mukerji served as a Senior Panel Counsel for the Government of India and the Damodar Valley Corporation. In 2005, he briefly taught at NUJS, Kolkata. He was also a member of the I.L.R. Committee of the High Court and the General Committee of the Bar Library Club2.
Judgeship
He was elevated to the Bench of the Calcutta High Court as a Permanent Judge on 18-5-20093.
The Supreme Court Collegium on 17-7-2024, recommended Justice Mukerji’s name for elevation as Chief Justice of Meghalaya High Court, which was confirmed, and he was appointed as Chief Justice of the High Court of Meghalaya on 21-09-20244 and took oath of office on 03-10-20245.
Notable Judgments by Justice I.P Mukerji
*Did you Know? During his judicial career, Justice I.P. Mukerji has been part of over 2900 decisions in Calcutta HC and over 200 decisions in Meghalaya HC6.
In Ranjit Chandra Goswami v. State of Meghalaya, 2025 SCC OnLine Megh 830, wherein a public interest litigation was filed against alleged illegal mining of limestone by the respondent, a cement company, the Division Bench of I.P. Mukerji, CJ.*, and W. Diengdoh J. disposed of the same and directed the State Government to monitor the respondent to prevent illegal mining of limestone.
In Cyprian Dkhar v. Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, 2025 SCC OnLine Megh 915, wherein an appeal was filed by a candidate for Magistrates First-Class, challenging the entire process of appointment, a Division Judge Bench of I.P. Mukerji, CJ.* and W. Diengdoh J. invalidated the appointment of 2022 Magistrate First-Class for the Subordinate District Council Court, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong. The Court held that the waiting list could not be used to fill up any other vacancy for which a new selection process had to be initiated and ordered the creation of one supernumerary post where the appellant would be at liberty to participate.
In Seng Khasi Hima Mawsynram v. State of Meghalaya, 2025 SCC OnLine Megh 672, regarding a stone configuration found in the Mawjymbuin cave which was believed to be a ‘Shiva Linga’, the Division Bench of I.P. Mukerji, CJ* and W. Diengdoh, J, directed a Single Judge bench of the Court to attempt to resolve the matter amicably through mediated settlement. The subject matter of the instant petition was the Mawjymbuin cave in the East Khasi Hills District of Mawsynram. A stone configuration was present in the cave which the people of the local Khasi tribe believed to be a ‘Shiva Linga’. The ‘Shiva Linga’ had acquired substantial religious importance with hundreds of devotees offering ‘puja’ in the cave.
In Bamang Nabam v. North Eastern Hill University, 2025 SCC OnLine Megh 399, which was an intra-court appeal by a 5th semester student at Shillong Law College, pursuing an LL.B. course, against the decision barring him from taking the examination due to shortage of attendance on account of gallbladder illness, the Division Bench of IP Mukerji, CJ and W. Diengdoh, J. allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned decision. The Court reiterated that Rule 12 could only cover a situation where in normal circumstances a student is absent, and his attendance falls below 70 per cent. However, the administrators of the college are to consider each case on its own merit. If they find that with the existing attendance the student has shown sufficient interest in and has adequate knowledge of the subjects in the semester and is otherwise diligent and of good conduct, he should be allowed to write the examination.
In Kaustav Paul v. State of Meghalaya, 2025 SCC OnLine Megh 441, seeking directions for the State to take appropriate measures to control the menace caused by stray dogs, to capture them, sterilising them and rehabilitating them in dog shelters, the Division Bench of IP Mukerji, CJ and W. Diengdoh, J. directed the State to form a Committee in terms of Rule 4 of the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001. The Court had passed directions in this effect confined to the Shillong District. The Shillong Municipal Board did not have adequate facilities to keep these stray animals. Following the Court’s order, the state provided shelter to accommodate these animals for a limited period. The Shillong Municipal Board has been able to set up an animal shelter, but it cannot house all stray dogs in the District. Pursuant to the Court’s order, meetings were held between the Municipal authority and the State, because of which, the State has extended the accommodation of these dogs in their shelter. The Court noted that the Municipal Corporation is proceeding with the acquisition of land for the purpose of building a further permanent shelter after which the animals in the state shelter would be shifted to the Municipal Board’s accommodation.
In a PIL titled Phuyosa Yobin v. State of Meghalaya, 2025 SCC OnLine Megh 429, which was regarding the ban on the use of plastic bags, the Division Bench of IP Mukerji, CJ and W. Diengdoh, J., directed every Deputy Commissioner heading a district to take the following measures:
(a) Continue to carry out awareness camps indicating the adverse effects of plastic.
(b) Informing and convincing the people by public announcement, through advertisement, billboards, wall writing, other media, that the use of plastic is detrimental to personal health, the environment, and the ecological system;
(c) Give reasonable time to persons who have already procured and have possession of plastic less than 120 microns to return the items to the seller or to dispose of them hygienically;
(d) Plastic of less than 120 microns in width should not be permitted to be manufactured in the State. The State should take all steps to prevent its clandestine manufacture and subject to (c) above, identify and inspect places where they are in frequent use, seize them and deal with the offenders appropriately. For this purpose, administrative orders may be issued.
Meghalaya High Court expands PIL on cremation facilities to address need for Christian cemeteries
In Re-Seng Khasi Hima Crematorium v. State of Meghalaya, 2025 SCC OnLine Megh 414, which was a PIL regarding the facilitation of the cremation of persons belonging to the Khasi, Jaintia and Hindu communities throughout the State of Meghalaya, in light of dearth of crematoria and unwillingness of members of these communities to share a crematorium with each other, the Division Bench of IP Mukerji and W. Diengdoh, JJ. enlarged the scope of PIL to include the Christian community considering judicial notice of information that various denominations of the Christian faith were facing difficulty in burying their dead. The Court noted that various denominations of the Christian faith faced similar difficulties in burying their dead in cemeteries. A cemetery controlled by one denomination is not allowing dead bodies of persons belonging to other denominations to be interred in the same cemetery. Resultantly, in various regions of the State, a long distance is to be covered by members of the bereaved family to perform the last rites of the dead. Hence, considering the same, the Court expanded the scope of the PIL to include the Christian community. The Court directed the Amicus Curiae to hold similar meetings with the District Magistrates concerned and members of the community to resolve the problem faced by the Christian community and file a report. The State was also directed to file a report to indicate whether it has any existing or contemplated proposal of increasing the number of cemeteries for members of the Christian community.
In Registrar General v. State of Meghalaya, 2025 SCC OnLine Megh 353, filed in pursuant to Supreme Court’s order for “ground truthing” of wetlands and identification of Ramsar sites amongst those waterbodies, the Division Bench of IP Mukerji, CJ.*, and W. Diengdoh, J. disposed of the PIL considering that none of the sites in question fell under Ramsar site per the Ramsar Convention on wetlands.
In Riths Trust v. State of Meghalaya, 2025 SCC OnLine Megh 286, challenging the vires of the Rajitlal University (Repealing) Act, 2023, which repealed the Rajitlal University Act, 2011 (the Act), the Division Bench of IP Mukerji, CJ.* and W. Diengdoh, J. dismissed the petition pointing out that the legislature is the sole judge of what law they are to make. The petitioners question the truth of the assertion made in the object and reasons in support of the repealing Act. The Court termed the present plea as an absolute abuse of the process of Court and frivolous.
In Geraldine G. Shabong v. State of Meghalaya, 2025 SCC OnLine Megh 160, which was a PIL filed to prevent illegal or irregular felling of trees in the Lower New Colony area, Laitumkhra, Shillong, the Division Bench of Chief Justice IP Mukerji and W. Diengdoh, J. stated that no tree should be cut unless it is imminently dangerous and would cause substantial damage if allowed to stand. The Bench issued directions for the manner/ process to be opted while dealing with such applications.
In Tenny Dard M. Marak v. State of Meghalaya, 2024 SCC OnLine Megh 1069, which was a public interest litigation alleging inaction or mismanagement of the Government in operating 28 weighbridges across the State, the Division Bench of I.P. Mukerji, CJ and W. Diengdoh, J. directed for an incognito spot inspection for two hours by the State, in the presence of the petitioner or his representative, in each of the weighbridges at checkpoints on one day at the time when vehicular traffic is the greatest. Any overloading fee, charges, revenue, etc. realised out of such inspection shall be stated in a report signed by the Commissioner of Transport and submitted before the Court by 10-02-2024.
In Sabri Properties (P) Ltd. v. Frostees Exports (India) (P) Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 2530, which was an appeal an against the order dismissing appellant’s applications for amendment of the written statement and leave to adduce further evidence, a division bench comprising of Biswaroop Chowdhury and I. P. Mukerji,* JJ., dismissed the appeals on the ground of maintainability and held that the appellant had no right of appeal from the impugned order as it was passed by a court exercising commercial jurisdiction, and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (Commercial Courts Act) expressly excluded appeals not covered by Section 13.
In Debonair Vanijya (P) Ltd. v. Eshrat Jahan, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 1178, a division bench comprising of I.P. Mukerji* and Biswaroop Chowdhury,** JJ., held that the Court’s decision regarding questions of law is unanimous, but there are differences with regards to question of facts, necessitating referral to a third Judge for resolution. The Court referred the matter to the Chief Justice for referral to a third Judge to resolve the factual differences between the judges.
In Prasad Ecostructure L.L.P. v. City Devcon (P) Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 494, a division bench comprising of Biswaroop Chowdhury and I.P. Mukerji,* JJ., held that when a civil court, under Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, decides on the transfer, the court functions as an ordinary civil court, not a commercial court under the Act. The Court asserted its jurisdiction to entertain the appeal but referred the same to the appropriate bench having jurisdiction over appeals from orders passed by a regular court of civil jurisdiction.
In Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2979, while deciding an appeal against the order of Single Judge granting an unconditional stay of the arbitral award, a Division bench comprising of I. P. Mukerji and Biswaroop Chowdhury, JJ., stayed the direction for the constitution of a “multi-member high-level enquiry committee” until the appeal’s disposal or until further orders, whichever came earlier.
Income of a club involving contributors and participators is not taxable: Calcutta High Court
In Saturday Club Ltd. v. CIT, (2025) 482 ITR 990, related to taxation of club income and the application of the principle of mutuality, a Division Bench consisting of I.P. Mukerji and Biswaroop Chowdhury, JJ., held that the income of the club involving contributors and participators is not taxable. The Court set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and remanded back the present matter limited to the above-mentioned issue only to the Tribunal. The Court directed the Tribunal to re-decide the question considering all the disclosures of facts made before the adjudicating authorities and the authorities cited.
In Susmita Saha Dutta v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Cal 2476, the Full Bench of Rajesh Bindal, ACJ and I.P. Mukerji, Harish Tandon, Soumen Sen and Subrata Talukdar, JJ., in furtherance to the order passed on 19-08-2021 which had directed the constitution of SIT to monitor the investigation of specific categories of cases monitored by a retired Supreme Court Judge, appointed a former Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court itself, stating non-availability of a retired Supreme Court Judge to take up the assignment.
In Susmita Saha Dutta v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Cal 2475, the Full Bench of Rajesh Bindal, ACJ and I.P. Mukerji, Harish Tandon, Soumen Sen and Subrata Talukdar, JJ., continued hearing the matter of infamous series of petitions filed with the allegation that the people who supported the political parties other than the ruling party in the recently concluded Assembly Elections in the State (year 2021), had been made to suffer at the hands of the supporters/workers of the party, which came in power.
In Shyam Steel Industries Ltd. v. Shyam Sel & Power Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Cal 5177, Division Bench of I.P. Mukerji and Md. Nizamuddin, JJ., allowed an appeal filed against the order of the Single Judge whereby he had rejected the appellant-plaintiff’s application for grant of interim injunction restraining the respondent-defendant from using the subject trademark. The appellant and the respondent were in the business of manufacturing TMT bars. The appellant was the registered proprietor of the word mark “Shyam” and label marks featuring this word prominently. The appellant filed a suit for infringement of the said trademark and passing off against the respondent. The interlocutory application filed by the appellant for grant of interim injunction till the disposal of the suit was rejected by the Single Judge as noted above. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the High Court.
This decision was reversed by the Supreme Court in Shyam Sel & Power Ltd. v. Shyam Steel Industries Ltd., (2023) 1 SCC 634.
Divorced wife denied permanent alimony in light of her unchaste conduct of adultery
In Ashutosh Bandhopadhyay v. Mukta Bandhopadhyay, 2018 SCC OnLine Cal 5100, a Division Bench comprising of I.P. Mukerji and Amrita Sinha, JJ., allowed an appeal filed by the husband against the order of District Judge who directed him to pay permanent alimony of Rs 14 lakhs to the respondent wife. The High Court perused Section 25 and found that grant of permanent alimony is subject to conditions. If at the time of deciding an application under the section, the wife is unchaste or has remarried, then the court may deny granting the application.
Citing the concept of ‘co-extensive’ rights as laid down in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Limited v. Union of India (1986) 2 SCC 288, the bench comprising of I.P. Mukerji J., in Indian Oil Officers’ Association v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 2016 SCC OnLine Cal 2301, allowed the writ petition by the Indian Oil Officers’ Association impugning various clauses in a Memorandum of Understanding between them and the Indian Oil Corporation (Respondents) on grounds of unconstitutionality, arbitrariness, illegality and mala fide intent, through violation of rights to freedom of demonstration, association, etc. under Article 19 of the Petitioner-Association.
1. Meghalaya HC | CJ and Judges
2. Supra
3. Calcutta HC | Former Judges
4. https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s35d6646aad9bcc0be55b2c82f69750387/uploads/2024/09/20240921329571429.pdf
5. https://meghalayahighcourt.nic.in/sites/default/files/news/N256.pdf
6. www-scconline-com.demo.remotlog.com “Coram Only” feature
