Know Thy Judge | Supreme Court of India: Justice S.V. Bhatti

Early Life and Education¹

Justice Sarasa Venkatanarayana Bhatti (Bhatt)² was born on 06-05-1962 and is a native of Madanapalli in Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh³. Justice Bhatti obtained his bachelor’s degree in law from Jagadguru Renukacharya College, Bangalore.

Career Trajectory

As an Advocate

After completing law, Justice Bhatti enrolled himself on 21-01-1987 with the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh and started his practice in the Trial Court at Madanapalle⁴ before moving his practice to the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad.⁵

Justice Bhatti served as a Special Government Pleader in the Office of Advocate General at the High Court of Andhra Pradesh from 2000 to 2003.⁶

As a Judge⁷

Justice S V Bhatti was sworn-in as Additional Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 12-04-2013. He was appointed as Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh and assumed his charge on 01-06-2014.

Upon bifurcation and establishment of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi on 01-01-2019, Justice Bhatti was sworn-in as a Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court and was later transferred to Kerala High Court. He was appointed as Judge of the High Court of Kerala and assumed office with effect from 19-03-2019.

Justice Bhatti was also appointed as Acting Chief Justice of Kerala High Court with effect from 24-04-2023 and was appointed as its Chief Justice with effect from 01-06-2023.

Within a month into the Chief Justiceship of Kerala High Court, news started pouring in that Justice Bhatti’s name is being considered for elevation to the Supreme Court. On 05-07-2023, the Collegium recommended Justice Bhatti’s name, which was approved by the Ministry of Law and Justice on 12-07-2023 finally on 14-07-2023 Justice Bhatti took oath as Supreme Court Judge.

The Collegium⁸ while considering Justice Bhatti’s name for elevation observed that during his long tenure as a judge of the High Court of Andhra High Pradesh and as a Judge and subsequently as Chief Justice of the High Court of Kerala, Justice Bhatti has acquired considerable experience in various branches of law. “The judgments authored by him dealing with issues in various branches of law stand testimony to his legal acumen and competence (…) the appointment of Justice Bhatti will provide a value addition in terms of his acquired knowledge and experience. He commands a good reputation and possesses integrity and competence.”

Did you Know? Justice S.V. Bhatti’s induction in the Supreme Court will give much-needed representation to High Court of Andhra Pradesh as it does not have any representation on the Bench of the Supreme Court since August 2022, after former Chief Justice N.V. Ramana retired.⁹

Notable Decisions by Justice S.V. Bhatti¹⁰

Supreme Court

‘Ghee’ is a livestock product and can be regulated under AP (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act: SC upholds Andhra Pradesh HC Judgment

In an appeal concerning whether “ghee” is a “product of livestock” under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (‘the Act’), the division bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia and SVN Bhatti, JJ. has held that there was nothing wrong in the 1994 notification and the challenge to the notification has rightly been turned down by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, stating that the notification is not under Section 3 but under Section 4 of the Act, and is valid and moreover “ghee” is a livestock product. Read More..

[Sangam Milk Producer Co. Ltd. v. Agricultural Market Committee, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 236]

Non-bailable warrants cannot be issued in a routine manner; Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings

The petitions were filed by the petitioners challenging legal proceedings initiated alleging various criminal charges, including breach of trust, fraud, and assault, leading to legal proceedings against them. The case relates to chargesheets being filed without stating sufficient details of the facts constituting the offense or putting the relevant evidence on record merely carrying a reproduction of the details mentioned by the complainant in the First Information Report, and then proceed to state whether an offence is made out, or not made out, without any elucidation on the evidence and material relied upon. A division bench of Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti, JJ., dismissed the charges against the petitioners and granted anticipatory bail further quashing the summoning order and non-bailable warrants against Manager Singh.

[Sharif Ahmed v State of UP, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 726]

Supreme Court penalizes Telangana Government with Rs. 5 Lakh cost for misleading affidavits, Authorizes recovery from responsible officials

The petition was filed due to a dispute over land ownership and forest reservation highlighting that a notification was issued declaring the land as reserved forest and seeking a declaration of title and permanent injunction. A division bench of M M Sundresh and S V Bhatti, JJ., held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining a re-hearing and acting as an appellate court in the review pointing out errors in the judgment that favored the plaintiff despite their failure to prove title to the land. Additionally, the court noted discrepancies in the handling of the case by state officials, ultimately setting aside the impugned judgment and restoring the earlier judgment. The Court permitted the Telangana government to investigate and recover costs from officials responsible for submitting misleading affidavits.

[State of Telangana v Mohd Qasim, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 548]

Supreme Court Orders Study to Assess Impact of Blasting Activities on Chittorgarh Fort

The case was filed due to concerns about the potential impact of mining activities, particularly blasting operations, on the Chittorgarh Fort, a historical monument of significant cultural importance. The petition was likely filed by parties concerned about the preservation of the fort and its surroundings, possibly including local residents, heritage conservation groups, or government authorities responsible for monument protection. A division bench of Sanjiv Khanna and S V Bhatti, J., held that while mining activities were permissible, blasting operations within a five-kilometre radius of the fort were prohibited to prevent potential damage to its structures. Manual or mechanical mining operations within this radius were allowed, subject to valid leases and compliance with regulations. Additionally, the court ordered the establishment of a multidisciplinary expert committee to study the environmental impact of blasting operations beyond the prohibited radius. The committee was tasked with assessing the impact on the fort’s structures, identifying causes of damage, and conducting an environmental impact assessment. The petitioner, Birla Corporation Limited, was directed to bear the expenses of the study.

[Birla Corporation Limited v Bhanwar Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 41]

Kerala High Court

[Safe Kerala Project] | Kerala High Court directs govt. to halt payment for AI Camera deal until further orders

In a petition by two Congress leaders primarily seeking stay on the implementation of fully Automated Traffic enforcement system for Safe Kerala by levying fine on the public, S.V.N. Bhatti, C.J. and Basant Balaji, JJ. directed the respondents not to make any payment under annuity until further orders of the Court.

[V.D. Satheesan MLA v. State of Kerala¹¹]

Kerala High Court directs State Bar Council to accept advocates enrollment fee of Rs 750

In a writ appeal seeking stay on operation and implementation of order dated 15-02-2023 which directed the Kerala Bar Council to accept petitioner’s enrollment application with a fee of Rs 750 only, S.V.N. Bhatti, CJ and Basant Balaji, J. directed the Bar Council of Kerala to accept enrollment fee of Rs 750 from all the aspirants seeking enrollment as an advocate to avoid individual cases seeking reduction of fees.

[Bar Council of Kerala v Akshai M Sivan, 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 4242]

Kerala High Court| Child should grow up knowing both parents and should enjoy the comfort of both parents

An appeal was filed by the mother of a minor child aged 6 years seeking custody of the child relating to a compromise decree passed wherein the appellant had agreed for the permanent custody of Vaishnav to be with the father and temporary custody to herself every Saturday from 10.00 a.m till 10.00 a.m. on the next day. A division bench of S V Bhatti and Bechu Kurian Thomas, JJ., modified the impugned order and held that taking note of the welfare of the child, which alone is the paramount consideration, the mother should have custody of the child during summer holidays for a period of 15-days each month and for 5 days during Onam and Christmas apart from custody on every Saturday from 10.00 Am till the next day-Sunday, till 6.00 PM.

[Saranya v Jyothi Basu, 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 15296]

Will the maxim res ipsa loquitor get attracted in a case where a healthy man ‘walks’ into the operation theater for removal of kidney stones, taken out as a paraplegic? Kerala High Court answers

An appeal was filed by PRS Hospital challenging the order directing damages to be paid to an alleged victim of medical negligence who was an otherwise healthy young man of 29 years, who rode his motorbike to the hospital to undergo minor surgery/procedure for the removal of kidney stones, however, the young man was brought out from the operation theater as a paraplegic and his speech, lost. A division bench of S V Bhatti and Bechu Kurian Thomas, JJ., upheld the impugned order for damages and held that by the application of the principle of res ipsa loquitor, the hospital alone could have answered or explained the allegation of negligence, however, in the nature of the evidence adduced, they have failed to prove the absence of negligence.

[PRS Hospital v P Anil Kumar, 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 8268]

Can a party to a litigation seek production of the medical records of a stranger to the lis especially those relating to a person with alleged mental illness? Kerala High Court answers

A petition was filed by the petitioner with a degree in M.Tech with second rank in the University, challenging a divorce proceeding wherein her right to privacy was allegedly infringed on account of a court certificate issued by the Family Court, Pala, for producing medical records of treatment undergone by the petitioner and her mother in a hospital. A division bench of S V Bhatti and Bechy Kurian Thomas, JJ., opined that unless the release of treatment records come within the purview and scope of the exceptions enshrined in Section 23 of Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, the records of treatment of a person with mental illness cannot be released by any health professional.

On perusing the affidavit supporting the application for issuance of Court Certificate for production of medical records of the petitioner and her mother, the Court held that

“The only averment written in the affidavit justifying production was “it is highly necessary to verify the treatment records of those persons from the year 2005 to 2015 for the fair disposal of the above case’, which cannot justify the production of treatment records of an alleged mentally ill person. Thus, there is no whisper even, as to how the document of a stranger to the litigation could be relevant or essential for the litigation.”

[X v Dr. S, 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 4377]

Kerala High Court refuses habeas corpus relief to a follower seeking production of Swami Prakashanantha alleging maladministration of hospital

A habeas corpus writ was filed by the petitioner, an ardent devotee of the dharma of H.E. Sri Narayana Guru Swami, having special attachment and affection for Swamiji seeking to produce Swami Prakashanantha before the Court and set him at liberty, due to him gaining knowledge that Swamiji is hospitalised in Shivagiri Sree Narayana Medical Mission Hospital, Varkala and alleging maladministration and ill-treatment. A division bench of S. V. Bhatti, and Bechu Kurian Thomas, JJ., refused grant writ relief and directed the hospital authorities to continue to give the best available treatment to Swami and keep a highly qualified and competent person informed on a day-to-day basis with a view to ensuring transparency.

[Vijendrakumar M v Swami Visudhananda, 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 17109]

Kerala High Court dismisses PIL challenging grant of Environmental Clearance for the construction of a shopping mall at Thiruvananthapuram

A PIL was filed by a person who espouses public causes and claims to have filed several public interest litigations in the Court due to his social commitment challenging the grant of Environmental Clearance (‘the EC’) for the construction of a shopping mall at Thiruvananthapuram. A division bench of S V Bhatti and Bechu Kurian Thomas, JJ., dismissed the PIL as the project does not violate either the Environment Impact Assessment notification or the Coastal Regulation Zone regulations.

[M K Salim v State of Kerala, 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 3119]

Every Muslim entitled to offer prayers in any mosque or buried dead bodies in a public khabarsthan; Kerala High Court holds Elappully Eranchery Jama-at Palli a public mosque and graveyard

A revision petition was filed by Elappully Erancheri Jama-Ath Palli (defendants) seeking revision of an order that upheld the order passed in a suit filed by members and beneficiaries of Elappully Eranchery Jama-ath Palli, a wakf challenging a ban on the members of the Jama-ath from participating in the marriage and their ceremonies along with burial of the dead bodies of the plaintiffs, others and their family members because the plaintiffs and 40 members of Elappully Erancheri Jama-Ath Palli wakf attended a religious discourse conducted by the Kerala Naduvathul Mujahideen. A division bench of S V Bhatti and Basant Balaji, JJ., held that the Elappully Eranchery Jama-ath Palli Mosque and khabarsthan being a public one, the defendants cannot obstruct the plaintiffs in offering prayers and burying the dead.

The Court opined “A mosque is a place of worship, and every Muslim offers prayer in the mosque. The Elappully Eranchery Jama-at Palli has no right to obstruct a member of the Jama-ath or any other Muslim from offering prayers. The burying of dead bodies is also a civil right. The graveyard situated in the plaint schedule property is a public graveyard. Every Muslim is entitled to get a decent burial according to civil rights and the graveyard under the supervision of the Elappully Eranchery Jama-at Palli is a public graveyard, any Muslim or any member of the Elappully Eranchery Jama-ath Palli has a right to bury the dead.”

[Elappully Eranchery Jama-at Palli v Mohammed Haneef, 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 5916]

Hyderabad High Court

Hyderabad High Court | Declarations prescribed by Section 18 of Legal Metrology Act, 2009 r/w Rule 6(1) & (2) Legal Metrology Rules, 2011 are mandatory and demand compliance by the manufacturer

An appeal was filed examining the nature, scope and object of Sections 18 and 52 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and Rule 6 (2) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 and seeking to suspend the orders passed by the Single Judge in dated 11-07-2018 in the interest of justice. A division bench of Thottathil B Radhakrishnan, CJ., and S V Bhatt, J., that the that the requirement of sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 is mandatory and in the case on hand, admittedly the details given in compliance with the requirement of Rule 6(1) are treated as satisfying the requirement of 6(2) as well, hence are untenable and are accordingly set aside.

[State of Telangana v Himjal Beverages Private Limited, 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 509]

Hyderabad High Court| Statutory obligations/rights under ESI Act cannot be contracted out by the employer and the employee/union; Such contracts are void and unenforceable

An application was filed based on an order of reference dated 30-04-2011, which occasioned the constitution of a Larger Bench, passed by the Full Bench in the civil appeals, in view of a divergence of the opinions/views expressed in two separate judgments. The issue under consideration was whether the parties are entitled to contract out of the beneficial provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. A full bench of Dilip B Bhosale ACJ., K C Bhanu, S V Bhatt, A Shankar Narayana, and Anis, JJ., held that the scheme of the ESI Act is intended to secure compulsory participation and/or contribution of sums due under the Act, and strikes at all attempts by contract to either limit or extinguish these rights directly or indirectly. The contracting out of statutory obligation by employer and employee when the obligation by operation of law is towards the Corporation, is void and illegal. Thus, the Act does not explicitly forbid such a course, but if the interpretation to contract out of the Act is accepted, the interpretation will defeat and destroy the compulsive character introduced by the legislation.

[RCC Sales Private Limited v ESI Corporation, 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 258]

Hyderabad High Court| Notice to the tenant in a shop is necessary in case of acquisition of land by Municipal authorities for road widening even if the landlord/owner of the premises has given his consent

An application was filed to address the issue whether in case of acquisition of land by municipal authorities, for road widening, on consent of the landlord of a shop any notice is necessary to be given to the tenant in the shop. A full bench of Dilip B Bhosale, ACJ., and M S Ramachandra Rao, S V Bhatti, S. Ravi Kumar, and Anis, JJ., answered the question under consideration in the affirmative and held that a notice to the lessee/tenant in the shop is necessary in case of acquisition of land by the municipal authorities for road widening on consent of landlord of a shop.

[Raisunna Begum v Premsukhai Jain, 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 598]

Hyderabad High Court| Any detenue under preventive detention/ illegal detention has a right under Article 226 of the Constitution; Required to be heard by a bench of two Judges

An application was filed to address the issue whether a petition for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus, under Article 226 of the Constitution can be entertained against the order of preventive detention passed under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act or any other enactment authorizing preventive detention. A three-judge bench of Dilip B Bhosale, ACJ., and S V Bhatti, and A Shankar Narayana, JJ., answered in the affirmative and held that the writ of habeas corpus provides a prompt and effective remedy against illegal detention under the Act or any other enactment authorizing preventive detention. Article 21 of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of life and liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law.

[G. Archana v State of Andhra Pradesh, 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 240]