Kumar enrolled as an Advocate with the Delhi Bar Council on 12 July 1971. He practiced in various High Courts and the Supreme Court, and served as an Additional District & Sessions Judge in the Himachal Pradesh High Court from February, 1983 till his resignation in October 1983, and thereafter resumed practice at New Delhi. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Delhi High Court on 10 November 1994, transferred to P&H on 30 November 1994, and was appointed as a permanent Judge on 30 November 1995. He transferred to Delhi on 4 October 2004 and was appointed as Chief Justice of Bombay High Court on 31 March 2007.
On 10 January 2014, he was named by the media as the Supreme Court judge accused of sexually exploiting a law intern. The Delhi High Court on 16 January 2014,in CS(OS) 102/2014 where the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to restrain the media from publishing or telecasting the allegations levelled on him by a former law intern, who has accused him of sexual harassment.It is also pertinent to mention that some of the leading members of the bar appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff, right from Mr.Mukul Rohatgi, Sr.Adv., Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, Sr.Adv., Mr.Rajiv Nayar, Sr.Adv., Mr.Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr.Adv., Mr.Vinay Bhasin, Sr.Adv., Mr.Maninder Singh, Sr.Adv., Mr.Kirti Uppal, Sr.Adv., Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Adv., Mr.Aman Lekhi, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Sudhir Walia, Mr.Ralan Karanjawala, Ms.Fareha Ahmad Khan, Mr.Abhijat, Mr.Mohit Mathur, Mr.P.Banerjee, Ms.Manmeet Arora, Ms.Meghna Mishra, Mr.Akshay Makhija, Mr.Ashish Dholakia, Mr.Abhimanya Mahajan, Ms.Mansi Sharma, Ms.Nidhi Parashar, Ms.Niyati Kohli & Mr.Varun Kumar Tikmani, Advs. Quite a band of pro bono advocates appeared and pressurized to restrain the media. The plaintiff is stated to have approached this Court as a consequence to the breach of his fundamental and personal rights, due to the alleged defamatory and malicious acts of defendant Nos.1 to 5.
The Hon'ble Justice before passing restraining order opined: "I have already examined in the preceding paragraph of this order the argument that even if some amount of fairness is attached to the publication, still the Court can proceed to prevent the same on the basis of the excessive prejudice. Suffice it to say, no conclusive finding as to fairness or unfairness can be arrived at this juncture. Upon the fair reading of material available on record, it prima facie appears that the same can prejudicially affect the public mind and there is real and tangible risk of the plaintiff in not getting fair trial or open justice as contemplated by the common law as per the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court of India in Sahara India (supra)."