“The conception that housemakers do not “work” or that they do not add economic value to the household is a problematic idea that has persisted for many years and must be overcome.”
Justice N. V. Ramana
Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., (2021) 2 SCC 166
Chief Justice of India SA Bobde, who is set to retire on April 23, 2021, has recommended the name of Justice NV Ramana to be his successor.
Born in an agricultural family on August 27, 1957 in Ponnavaram Village, Krishna District, Justice Ramana enrolled as an Advocate on February 10, 1983 and practiced in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Central and Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunals and the Supreme Court of India in Civil, Criminal, Constitutional, Labour, Service, Election and Inter-State River matters. He was also the Panel Counsel for various Government Organizations and had also served as Additional Standing Counsel for Central Government and Standing Counsel for Railways in the Central Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad.
Before being appointed as a permanent Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on June 27, 2000, Justice Ramana also served as the Additional Advocate General of Andhra Pradesh. He was then appointed as the Acting Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court from March 10, 2013 to May 20, 2013 and was later elevated as the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court on 02.09.2013. The elevation as a Supreme Court judge came less than a year later on 17.02.2014.
Justice Ramana, who is set to become the 48th Chief Justice of India on April 24, 2021, is due to retire on August 26, 2022.
As a Supreme Court Judge, Justice Ramana has been a part of some of the most important verdicts. We have curated some of such verdicts in the post below
Last year, Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy wrote to the Chief Justice of India Justice SA Bobde accusing Justice NV Ramana of attempting to destabilize and topple the YSR Congress government in the state. The Supreme Court, however, issued a statement today that the complaint was dealt with under the In-House Procedure and the same, on due consideration, was dismissed.