Landmark judgments of NV Ramana, recommended to be next CJI
Chief Justice of India SA Bobde on Wednesday recommended Justice NV Ramana as his successor after he retires. Last week, Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad had reportedly sent a letter to CJI Bobde, seeking his recommendation for his successor. If the government approves the recommendation, Justice Ramana will serve as the new CJI from April 24, 2021, until August 26, 2022.
Justice NV Ramana was born on August 27, 1957, into an agrarian family in Andhra Pradesh's Ponnavaram village. He was enrolled at the Bar in 1983 and appointed permanent Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 2000. He was elevated as the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court in 2013. On February 17, 2014, he was elevated as a Supreme Court judge.
A bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and NV Ramana had held the appointment of Archakas in temples would have to be made in accordance with the Agamas, subject to their due identification as well as their conformity with the Constitutional mandates and principles. The Archakas' exclusion/inclusion would not violate Article 14 if it is not based on caste, birth, or other constitutionally unacceptable parameters.
A five-judge Constitution bench of Justices Jagdish Singh Khehar, Dipak Misra, Madan B Lokur, Pinaki Chandra Ghose, and NV Ramana had quashed Arunachal Pradesh Governor's order advancing the sixth session of the state Legislative Assembly by a month without consulting the Chief Minister, Council of Ministers or the Speaker. The order was violative of Article 163 read with Article 174, the bench had noted.
A nine-judge bench, by a 7:2 majority, had upheld the validity of the entry tax imposed by states on goods imported from other states, giving the majority view that States are well within their right to design their fiscal legislations.
A five-judge bench including Justice Ramana upheld the validity of Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017. The bench held that the Section does not suffer from an excessive delegation of legislative functions. It 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.
Central Public Information Officer v/s Subhash Chandra Agarwal, 2019: A five-judge SC bench had held that the office of the CJI comes under the purview of the Right to Information. Foundations for Media Professionals v/s Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, 2020: A three-judge bench had constituted a three-member committee to look into demand for allowing 4G mobile internet J&K.
Anuradha Bhasin v/s Union of India, 2020: A three-judge bench had asked the J&K administration to review all orders restricting telecom/internet services. Md. Anwar v/s State of NCT of Delhi, 2020: A three-judge bench had held that to successfully claim defense of mental unsoundness under IPC Section 84, the accused must show that their mental illness affected the ability to distinguish right from wrong.
