Appointments & TransfersNews

Justice NV Ramana took oath as the 48th Chief Justice of India in a small ceremony at the Rashtrapati Bhavan due to COVID restrictions. Justice Ramana, who is due to retire on August 26, 2022, will serve as the Chief Justice of India for 16 months.  He succeeds Justice SA Bobde, who retired yesterday.

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.

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 

Know Thy Judge| Justice N.V. Ramana


ALSO READ

Chief Justice SA Bobde retires: A look at his legacy and justice in the time of COVID-19

Appointments & TransfersNews

President Ram Nath Kovind has appointed Justice NV Ramana as the next Chief Justice of India. Justice Ramana  will take oath as the 48th CJI on April 24, 2021 and is due to retire on August 26, 2022. Last month, Chief Justice of India SA Bobde, who is set to retire on April 23, 2021, had 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.

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 

Know Thy Judge| Justice N.V. Ramana

Hot Off The PressKnow thy JudgeNews

“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 

Know Thy Judge| Justice N.V. Ramana

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.

Supreme Court dismisses Andhra Pradesh CM Jagan Mohan Reddy’s complaint against Justice NV Ramana


ALSO READ 

As Justice SA Bobde takes charge as the 47th Chief Justice of India, here’s all you need to know about him

Know thy Judge

As Justice N. V. Ramana, next in line to become the Chief Justice of India, celebrates his 63rd birthday today, let’s have a look at his journey so far in shaping the justice system.

Here are some of the notable judgments that Justice Ramana has been a part of:

Jindal Stainless Ltd v. State of Haryana, (2017) 12 SCC 1: A 9-judge bench, by 7:2 majority, upheld the validity of the entry tax imposed by the States on goods imported from other States. The Bench held that taxes simpliciter are not within the contemplation of Part XIII of the Constitution of India and that the word ‘Free’ used in Article 301 does not mean “free from taxation”. T.S. Thakur, CJ and Dr.  A.K. Sikri, S.A. Bobde, Shiva Kirti Singh, N.V. Ramana, R. Banumathi and A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ, giving the majority view said that States are well within their right to design their fiscal legislations to ensure that the tax burden on goods imported from other States and goods produced within the State fall equally. Read more 

Central Public Information Officer v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1459: The 5-judge constitution Bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and NV Ramana, Dr. DY Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ has held that the office of the Chief Justice of India comes under the purview of the Right to Information. In the 250-pages long judgment, Justice Sanjiv Khanna wrote the majority opinion for the Bench and Justices NV Ramana and DY Chandrachud gave separate but concurring opinion. Read more 

Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637: A 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, R Subhash Reddy and BR Gavai, JJ has asked J&K administration to review all orders imposing curbs on telecom and internet services in the state in a week and put them in public domain. “The existing Suspension Rules neither provide for a periodic review nor a time limitation for an order issued under the Suspension Rules. Till this gap is filled, the Review Committee constituted under Rule 2(5) of the Suspension Rules must conduct a periodic review within seven working days of the previous review, in terms of the requirements under Rule 2(6).” Read more 

Foundations for Media Professionals v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 453 : A 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, R. Subhash Reddy and BR Gavai, JJ has constituted a three-member committee to look into demand for allowing 4G mobile internet in the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir. Noticing that since the issues involved affect the State and the nation, the Court found it appropriate to constitute a Special Committee comprising of the following Secretaries at national, as well as State, level to look into the prevailing circumstances and immediately determine the necessity of the continuation of the restrictions in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. Read more 

Nabam Rebia, and Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker, (2016) 8 SCC 1: A 5-judge constitutional bench of Jagdish Singh Khehar, Dipak Misra, Madan B. Lokur, Pinaki Chandra Ghose and N.V.Ramana, JJ. quashed the order of the Governor, preponing the 6th session of the Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly by a month without consulting the Chief Minister, Council of Ministers or the Speaker, on account of being violative of Article 163 read with Article 174 of the Constitution of India. Read more 

Commr. of Customs v. Dilip Kumar and Co., (2018) 9 SCC 1 : A five-Judge Constitution Bench speaking through N.V. Ramana, J., while invalidating the ratio of Sun Export Corpn. v. Collector of Customs(1997) 6 SCC 564, laid at rest the controversy regarding the interpretation of an ambiguous provision exempting tax. The Bench noticed that there was distinction between interpreting a charging section and an exempting section. In case of ambiguity in a charging section, the interpretation has to be made in favour of the assessee. Read more

Roger Mathew v. South India Bank Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1456 : A 5-judge Constitution Bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and NV Ramana, Dr. DY Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ has upheld the validity of Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017 and held that the said Section does not suffer from excessive delegation of legislative functions as there are adequate principles to guide framing of delegated legislation, which would include the binding dictums of this Court. The Court struck down the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2017, made under Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017, for being contrary to the parent enactment and the principles envisaged in the Constitution. Read more 

Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam v. State of T.N., (2016) 2 SCC 725 : The bench held that the appointment of Archakas in temples will have to be made in accordance with the Agamas, subject to their due identification as well as their conformity with constitutional mandates and principles. Exclusion of some and inclusion of a particular segment or denomination for appointment as Archakas would not violate Article 14 only so long such inclusion/exclusion is not based on criteria of caste, birth or any other constitutionally unacceptable parameter.

Md. Anwar v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 653:. The 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, SA Nazeer and Surya Kant, JJ has held that in order to successfully claim defence of mental unsoundness under Section 84 of IPC, the accused must show by preponderance of probabilities that he/she suffered from a serious-enough mental disease or infirmity which would affect the individual’s ability to distinguish right from wrong. “Mere production of photocopy of an OPD card and statement of mother on affidavit have little, if any, evidentiary value.” Read more