Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.
Legal Services India

» Home
Sunday, January 25, 2026

Justice Revati Mohite Dere Takes Oath As Chief Justice Of Meghalaya High Court

Posted in: Judiciary
Wed, Jan 14, 26, 04:47, 2 Weeks ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 27302
Justice Revati Mohite Dere takes oath as Meghalaya High Court Chief Justice, marking a historic step for women, judicial independence and rule of law.

It is really great and most interesting to see that Hon’ble Mrs Justice Revati Mohite Dere known all over for speaking truth to power was sworn in as the Chief Justice of the Meghalaya High Court by the Governor of Meghalaya – Mr CH Vijayashankar at a function held at the Durbar Hall of the Lok Bhavan on January 10, 2025. She is the second woman Chief Justice of Meghalaya High Court after Hon’ble Mrs Justice T Meena Kumari thus becoming second women to head Shillong High Court marking a historic moment. It must be mentioned here that Meghalaya is known for its matrilineal social structure and her appointment is definitely bound to send a fresh hope for those who seek justice and above all her own reputation is most impeccable and so also has exemplary track record which people become aware very soon as we are living in digital age since last two decades!

It must be laid bare that the Central Government while exercising its constitutional authority under Articles 217 and 222 of the Constitution of India had notified her transfer on January 1, 2026 after the Supreme Court Collegium made the recommendation of her appointment as Meghalaya High Court Chief Justice on December 18, 2025. She has replaced Hon’ble Mr Justice Soumen Sen as the Chief Justice of the Meghalaya High Court who has been posted to the Kerala High Court. It merits just no reiteration whatsoever that legal experts opine her elevation to the top post in judiciary in Meghalaya High Court as a very great step towards greater gender representation in the higher judiciary and so also definitely a signal of institutional inclusivity at the constitutional level.

It must definitely be brought to light here that Hon’ble Mrs Justice Revati Mohite Dere in her farewell speech just days before she took oath as the Chief Justice of the Meghalaya High Court said in no uncertain terms most unambiguously that:
The work of a judge is not just to interpret law, but also to uphold people’s faith in the judiciary.” During a full court reference to bid her farewell at the Bombay High Court, she also candidly disclosed that being a judge was a “calling” for her and “not just a profession”. Undoubtedly, she was one of the senior-most women Judges of the country’s second largest High Court that is Bombay High Court. The largest High Court among all the States is Allahabad High Court not in just India, not in just Asia but in the whole world!

For my esteemed readers exclusive indulgence, it must be laid bare that during her farewell full court reference that was held on December 8, the Advocate General of Maharashtra – Milind Sathe recounted an incident from 1985, where during a conference in Pune, he witnessed a young girl discussing the pros and cons of the five-year law course with her seniors. While expressing his immense happiness, Milind Sathe further laying bare his true feelings said explicitly: “That young, bright girl is today poised to be Chief Justice of the Meghalaya High Court. True to the meaning of her name, she has shown empathy, compassion and kindness in abundance to everyone and in her decision-making process.”

It is worth noting that the President of the Bombay Bar Association and Senior Advocate – Nitin Thakker said clearly that the Judge was someone with a soft voice and so also an iron resolve. Nitin Thakker also while reflecting on her attitude quite frankly said that:
She taught us that one does not need to be loud to be heard, and one does not need to be harsh to be tough.”

She was born at Pune and she did her schooling from St Joseph’s High School at Pashan in Pune and completed her Higher Secondary Certificate (H.Sc.) from Ferguson College (Arts) in Pune and received National Merit Certificate for standing in the Merit List. She then passed the Five Year Law Course from reputed Symbiosis Law College in Pune and it was the first batch of Five Year Law Course. She secured a First Class with Distinction in BSL and LLB and stood 2nd in the Merit List in University of Pune as Symbiosis Law College then came under Pune University and had no independent status as a University but since last couple of years Symbiosis has its own status of University. She then further also studied LLM at the University of Cambridge, UK and was the recipient of the Cambridge Commonwealth Trust Scholarship for LLM.

After completing her LLM, she then joined the Chambers of her father who is an eminent senior advocate – Vijayrao A Mohite at Pune and thereafter the Chambers of Barrister Raja S Bhosale in Mumbai before serving as Public Prosecutor and Government Pleader for Maharashtra. She practiced in the Sessions Court of Pune and so also at the Bombay High Court on the criminal, civil and constitutional side. She developed deep expertise in legal profession very soon in her career and was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court on June 21, 2013 and then made a Permanent Judge in March 2016.

Of course, her remarkable judgments of very exceptional quality delivered by her earlier speaks for themselves! She has also consistently interpreted the Constitution through the lens of equality and dignity, challenging patriarchal norms in public and marital spheres and always standing for justice, equality and fairness! In hindsight, it may be recalled that in her initial days as Judge in 2016, she played a formidable role in the landmark ruling that allowed women unrestricted access to Mumbai’s Haji Ali Dargah declaring the gender based ban a violation of Articles 14, 15 and 25. Even more significantly, we saw how her uncompromising stance on sexual violence by some men culminated in her Bench upholding death penalty for repeat offenders in the Shakti Mills gang rape case in 2019 which definitely has to be applauded!

Not stopping here, we also witnessed how in 2021, while affirming a man’s conviction for fatally attacking his wife, she rejected claims of provocation asserting most unequivocally that a wife is not a possession but an equal partner. Most brilliantly, we must note that she also advocated for reforming Section 498A of the IPC to allow non-compoundable offences to become compoundable with court approval. To put it differently, while pressing for reform of Section 498A of IPC, she most stoutly suggested that the Union government should consider making the non-compoundable offence compoundable with court permission, in cases where parties have settled their disputes. It is high time that this much misused Section 498A of IPC be amended as advocated so passionately by her who has many decades of matchless experience first as lawyer and then as a Judge in the Bench!

What also cannot be glossed over is that she also treated encounter cases and custodial violence as failures of the rule of law, demanding transparency and proper registration of FIR in such cases. Notably, we need to bear in mind that even in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh case, she had the guts to question the CBI’s selective prosecution. It would be instructive to note that the Division Bench led by her also repeatedly questioned why the CBI had not challenged the discharge of senior IPS officers while actively opposing relief only for lower-ranking officials which not only fortifies the voice and concern raised of selective prosecution but also makes it quite palpable that there is more to it than just meets the eye! She also seriously questioned the CBI’s too much interest in protecting numerous witnesses who were turning hostile in the trial! It also has to be borne in mind that her rulings have also safeguarded the rights of queer couples and their children.

We need to note that she also headed a Division Bench that had refused to grant bail to Pradeep Sharma in the Antilia terror scare case, noting probe gaps including his unexplained presence at the Mumbai Police Commissioner’s office in March 2021. It may also be recounted that in the Badalpur alleged fake encounter case of 2024-25, she expressed her resentment and warned against delayed FIRs in such serious cases despite clear magisterial findings. She reasoned that the judicial system’s credibility was at stake and compelled registration under contempt threat.

We also certainly cannot afford to ignore that in the ICICI-Videocon case, her Bench questioned CBI delays after lodging the 2019 FIR. She also granted interim bail to former ICICI Bank CEO Chanda Kochhar and her husband Deepak Kochhar on grounds of illegal arrest. She too often has also expanded the protections under Article 21, pushing back against investigative excess. It must be recalled here that in 2022, her Bench had stepped forward boldly to hold most commendably that the right to sleep and blink constituted an inalienable part of Article 21 and directed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to record statements during reasonable hours after overnight interrogation allegations.

As Juvenile Justice Committee Chairperson, she had played a very pivotal role to reform the Dongri Observation Home. Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh was most candid in conceding frankly that:
Her vision was to ensure that home produces a conducive environment for the overall development of the children who are in need of the care and protection. I have seen photographs of the centres and it is just like some three-star hotels.”

In a nutshell, it can definitely be said with certitude that in her new avatar as Chief Justice of Meghalaya High Court, she will definitely fulfill all the many high expectations that people and litigants have from her. If her past is any guide, the people and litigants in Meghalaya definitely need not worry at all on any score as it is beyond a straw of doubt that she will definitely never disappoint them on any score and will perform most superbly! No denying or disputing it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Legal Services India

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 19, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
Rahendra Baglari v. Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M) writ petitioner for adjoining a Judicial Magistrate and the High Court and its Registry as Respondents to his plea against the order passed by the said Magistrate.
Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal vs.Uttarakhand long standing or established status quo brought about by judgments interpreting local or state laws, should not be lightly departed from.
Maharashtra has 4 high court benches at Panaji, Nagpur, Aurangabad and Kolhapur apart from High Court at Mumbai but on the contrary UP which has maximum pending cases in India
It is most shocking to see that a peaceful, one of the most developed and most prosperous state like Maharashtra has 4 high court benches at Panaji, Nagpur, Aurangabad and Kolhapur
I am neither a member nor supporter of BJP or any other political party nor a member of any of BJP's affiliated organizations like the RSS or VHP or any other organization.
Kirti vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited advocates cannot throw away legal rights or enter into arrangements contrary to law. It was also made clear that any concession in law made in this regard by either counsel would not bind the parties.
Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) on December 28, 2020 had expressed shock and deep concern on the arbitrary, illegal and brazen exercise of brute power by the police against lawyers, including the search conducted at the premises of an advocate representing some of the accused in the North-East Delhi riots cases.
media trial during criminal investigation interferes with administration of justice and hence amounts to contempt of court as defined under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Jamal v. Maharashtra dismissed a plea filed by the National President of BJP Minority Morcha – Jamal Anwar Siddiqui seeking 'X' category security.
Duroply Industries Limited and anr. Vs Ma Mansa Enterprises Private Limited in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction has recalled its own order of an injunction passed in a trademark dispute as the Judge presiding over the case had appeared for one party in respect of the same trademark in the past.
At the outset, it must be stated rather disconcertingly that it is India's misfortune that UP which has the maximum population more than 23 crore as Yogi Adityanath
At the outset, it has to be stated without mincing any words that it merits no reiteration that Judges age for retirement must be now increased to 75
Rajeev Bhardwaj v. H.P while dismissing a plea seeking a declaration of a sitting Judge's dissenting view as Coram non-judice and non est in the eyes of law.
Adv KG Suresh vs UOI has declared as unconstitutional the bar on lawyers representing parties in matters before the Maintenance Tribunals constituted under the Maintenance Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Maintenance Act).
Bar Council of India ensured that there is an entrance exam now for all those lawyers who want to practice which has to be cleared before lawyers can start practicing.
It is a matter of grave concern that while our Constitution enshrines the right to equality as postulated in Article 14 but in practice what we witness is just the reverse.
seeking interim bail/parole for the under-privileged and under-trial prisoners/convicts keeping in view the terrible havoc unleashed by the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic.
When an intellectual giant like Fali Sam Nariman whom I personally rate as the world's top jurist and it is not just me but his extremely impeccable credentials are acknowledged in legal field, it is not just India but the whole world which listens to him in silence
Treasa Josfine vs Kerala that a woman who is fully qualified cannot be denied of her right to be considered for employment on the ground that she is a woman and because the nature of the employment would require her to work during night hours.
Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs constituted a Committee to suggest reforms in our criminal justice system which has been facing repeated criticism for its various drawbacks
Congress government's rule in Centre, Kapil Sibal who was Union Law Minister had written very categorically to UP Government for creating a high court bench for West UP at Meerut
completely about the truthfulness of the retracted confession and should corroborate his/her confession as it is unsafe to convict an accused person solely on the basis of the retracted confession
Thabir Sagar vs Odisha the practice of Advocate's clerks filing affidavits on behalf of parties is unacceptable. Such a practice is in gross violation of Rule 26 of the Orissa High Court Rules. It has therefore rightly directed its Registry to ensure that steps are taken forthwith to stop the practice of accepting such affidavits
COVID situation in UP, the Allahabad High Court has issued revised fresh guidelines for the functioning of all the Courts and Tribunals subordinate to it.
amended its rules to make criticism and attack of Bar Council decisions by members a misconduct and ground for disqualification or suspension or removal of membership of a member from the Bar Council.
CJI NV Ramana who was appointed as the 48th CJI on 6th April, 2021 and took oath as CJI on 24th April 2021 has very rightly expressed his concern on the social media noise and how it adversely impacts the institutions also like judiciary to a great extent which actually should not be the case.
At the crucial meeting of the Central Action Committee. of more than 20 districts of Bar Association of West UP held at Aligarh
Why UP which is among the largest States, has maximum population more than 24 crore which is more than even Pakistan
When finances are needed for the purpose of improving the judicial system at the lower levels, there is reluctance to make such finances available.
rarely ever booked and made to face the consequences which only serves to further encourage men in uniform to take it for granted to indulge in worst custodial torture
Tarun Saxena vs Union of India as ultra vires Section 17 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 which bars lawyers from representing parties in matters before the Maintenance Tribunals
Dhanbad district of Jharkhand was mowed down by an autorickshaw has sent shivers down the spine. The ghastly incident happened on morning of July 28 near the Magistrate colony of Dhanbad that was close to the Judge's residence.
Suman Chadha & Anr. vs. Central Bank of India in that the wilful breach of the undertaking given to the Court can amount to Contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Rajasthan High Court Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts 2020 which shall be applicable to the proceeding of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and all the Subordinate Courts of the Rajasthan with immediate effect.
Arun Singh Chauhan v/s MP deprecate the conduct of a practicing advocate who chose not to answer the repeated queries of the Court pertaining to the maintainability of his petition seeking issuance of a writ of quo warranto and regarding the non-impleadment of a necessary party
Dr.Mukut Nath Verma vs UoI Allahabad High Court imposed Rs 5 lakh costs on an advocate Dr Mukut Nath Verma after concluding that he unauthorisedly filed a writ petition on behalf of suspended and absconding IPS officer Mani Lal Patidar and also levelled serious allegations against state authorities and thereby misleading the Court.
Anil JS vs Kerala that instances of allegations about the police disrespecting the citizens were arriving at its doors with alarming regularity and therefore issued certain general directions in its judgment.
If there is one Judge on whom I have blind faith for his exemplary conduct throughout his brilliant career and who can never favour wrongly even his own son
Indianisation of our legal system is the need of the hour and it is crucial to make the justice delivery system more accessible and effective.
the gang war of different gangs have now reached right up to the court premises itself which are supposed to be the holiest shrines for getting justice.
It is not just for enjoying life or going for some holiday trip that lawyers of West UP repeatedly keep going on strike since last many decades.
CM Yogi Adityanath UP has progressed by leaps and bounds which one certainly cannot deny but why is it that it has just one High Court Bench only and that too just approximately 200 km away at the city famously called Nawab City
Just changing name of Allahabad to Prayagraj won't change the ground reality. It is a proven fact that High Court is still called Allahabad High Court and not Prayagraj High Court.
It is most shocking that all the Chief Justices of India from 1947 till 2000 were never shocked nor were any world famous jurist like Nani Ardeshir Palkhiwala, Ram Jethmalani, Shanti Bhushan, Prashant Bhushan among many others
Raggu Baniya @ Raghwendra vs UP has directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to instruct the District Magistrates of all the districts to re-evaluate the cases for remission after 14 years of incarceration even if appeals in such cases are pending in the High Court.
Union Minister of State for Law and Justice – SP Singh Baghel who is also an MP from Agra again in Western UP and who just recently took over has made it clear that his ministry was open to the setting up of a Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Western UP.
Anil Kumar and Anr. Vs Amit that the practice of advocates acting as power of attorney holders of their clients and also as advocates in the matter, is contrary to the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Shashank Singh vs/ Honourable High Court of Judicature at Allahabad that under Article 233 of the Constitution of India, a Judicial Officer regardless of his or her previous experience, as an Advocate, cannot apply and compete for appointment to any vacancy in the post of District Judge.
It must be stated at the very outset that it is quite bewildering and baffling to see that the state of UP which Ban ki moon who is the former UN Secretary General had slammed as the rape and crime capital of India
most powerfully raised vocally the legitimate demand for a High Court Bench in West UP which is the crying need of the hour also.
Top