NV Ramana, known as ‘People’s Judge’ the Hon’ble Chief Justice NV Ramana, was born on 27th August in Ponnavaram Village in Krishna District of Andhra Pradesh. Before entering the legal field, Ramana was a journalist for a Telugu Newspaper, ‘Eenadu,’ for one year. Subsequently, he enrolled as an advocate in 1983. He practiced in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh & Center Administrative Tribunals, and the Supreme Court of India, where he dealt with civil, criminal, labor, service, and election matters. Hon’ble Justice also served as the Additional Advocate General of Andhra Pradesh. He was appointed as Additional Standing Counsel for the Central Government.
Who is NV Ramana?
On June 27th, 2000, Ramana was appointed as a Permanent Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Subsequently, he was appointed the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court in 2013, and on 17 February 2014, he was elevated as a judge in the Supreme Court of India. Justice NV Ramana took oath as Chief Justice on April 24, 2021 during the pandemic and wherein SC turned to virtual hearing. Emphasizing the importance of transparency in the judicial process, he launched an app to make the court's virtual proceedings accessible to the media.
After serving eight years in the Supreme Court, CJI Ramana retired on August 26th, 2022. During his tenure as a Judge, CJI Ramana has sat on 666 Benches and authored 177 Judgments, some of which became landmark judgments like rendering the sedition law ineffective.
/content-assets/f3423bc2410244f8964ec9a1b3424bf0.png)
In this article, let’s discuss some of the notable judgments given by Hon’ble Chief Justice NV Ramana in his commendable journey.
List of Cases by N.V Ramana
1. The Chief Justice’s office comes under the purview of the Right to Information Act.
Case Title- Central Public Information Officer, SC vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, SC, 2019
Case Background- The appeal was made to the SC by the Central Public Information Officer in a matter about application moved by the respondent to seek an answer regarding transparency in the context of the collegium system for appointment and elevation of judges to the Supreme Court and the High Courts, declaration of assets by Judges under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Issue-
- Whether the concept of independence of judiciary requires and demands the prohibition of furnishing of the information sought and whether the information sought amounts to interference in the functioning of the Judiciary?
- Whether the information sought for cannot be furnished to avoid any erosion in the credibility of the decisions and to ensure a free and frank expression of honest opinion by all the constitutional functionaries, which is essential for effective consultation and for taking the right decision?
- Whether the information sought for is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act?
Held- A 5-Judge Constitution Bench held that the office of the Chief Justice of India comes under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Bench held that the CJI’s office is a Public Authority as defined in the Act. This would make information on SC Judges and their assets, which had earlier been protected, publicly available. In a concurring but separate Judgment, Justice Ramana agreed with the majority Judgment. However, he added that the right to information should not be used as a “tool of surveillance,” hindering the effective functioning of the Judiciary.
2. Right to the internet is a fundamental right guaranteed under the right to freedom of speech and expression.
Case Title - Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India & Ors., SC, 2019
Facts- The writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by Anuradha Bhasin, who is Executive Editor of Kashmir Times daily, who challenged the curbs on internet, media, and also other prohibitions imposed in the Kashmir region following the abrogation of the special status of Jammu & Kashmir on August 5.
Issues-
- Whether the freedom of speech and expression and freedom to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business over the Internet is a part of the fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution?
- Whether the Government’s action of prohibiting internet access is valid?
- Whether the imposition of restrictions under Section 144, Cr.P.C., valid?
Held- A 3 Judge Bench comprising Justices N V Ramana, Surya Kant, and B R Gavai held that “the freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to practice any profession or carry on any trade, business or occupation over the medium of internet enjoys constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g).” The Court further observed that such freedom is subjected to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) and 19(6) which includes the test of proportionality. Any order suspending the internet issued under the Suspension Rules must adhere to the principle of proportionality and must not extend beyond the necessary duration.
Regarding the executive’s power vested through section 144 of CrPC, the Court observed that - The power under Section 144, CrPC cannot be used to suppress the legitimate expression of opinion, grievance, or exercise of any democratic rights. An order passed under Section 144, CrPC. should state the material facts and is subjected to judicial review.
3. Establishment of Special Courts to deal with trials against legislators
Case Title- Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India
Facts- The matter came before Court about the delay in investigation/inquiry and criminal trials pending against legislators under various enactments.
Held - The SC sought information from High Courts regarding criminal cases pending against legislators under special legislations such as the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, etc. While expressing concerns about the increase in political criminalization, the Court gave directions to High Courts to establish Special Courts. The Court directed Chief Justices of the High Courts to devise an action plan for expeditious disposal of criminal cases pending against legislators and gave several other directions. In such cases, if the stay is granted, the Court must first decide whether the stay granted, if any, should continue, keeping in view the principles regarding the grant of stay enshrined in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited v. CBI. If a stay is considered necessary, the Court should hear the matter on a day-to-day basis and dispose of the same expeditiously, preferably within two months, without any unnecessary adjournment. The Court also gave direction regarding the protection of witnesses in such cases.
4. Assessing calculation of the notional income of homemakers
Case Title - Kirti vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, SC, 2021
Relevant Law- Motor Vehicle Act, 1988
Facts- The court was dealing with an appeal case related to a Motor Accident Compensation Claim filed by heirs of a deceased couple who died in an accident; one of the deceased in this case was a housemaker.
Held- Justice Ramana wrote a separate opinion while concurring with the judgment given by Justice Surya Kant. He emphasized the role of the homemaker and observed that the approach of negating the homemaker’s role in contributing to the economic value of a house is problematic and needs to be overcome. While determining the notional income of a victim, Court observed that there are two distinct categories of situations. The first category of cases deals with situations where the victim was employed, but the claimant cannot prove her actual income before the Court. In such a situation, the Court "guesses" the income of the victim based on the evidence on record, like the quality of life being led by the victim and her family, the general earning of an individual employed in that field, the qualifications of the victim, the second category of cases, relates to those situations of determining the income of a non earning victims, such as a child, a student or a homemaker.
The Court observed in such cases factors that should be taken into account is the gendered nature of housework, with an overwhelming percentage of women being engaged in the same as compared to men, the fixing of notional income of a homemaker attains special significance. It becomes a recognition of the work, labour and sacrifices of homemakers and a reflection of changing attitudes. It is also in furtherance of our nation's international law obligations and our constitutional vision of social equality and ensuring dignity to all. Various methods can be employed by the Court to fix the notional income of a homemaker, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case and such assessment should neither be done too conservatively nor too liberally.
5. Test for claiming mental unsoundness as a defense under section 84 of IPC
Case Title - Mohd.Anwar vs. State (Nct Of Delhi), SC, 2020
Relevant Law- Section 84, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Facts- The appeal was made to the SC from the High Court of Delhi judgment, where the HC rejected the accused's plea of mental unsoundness under section 84 of IPC.
Held- The Three Judge bench, while dismissing the appeal, held - “To successfully claim defense of mental unsoundness under Section 84 of IPC, the accused must show by a 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. 2 Further, it must be established that the accused was afflicted by such disability, particularly at the time of the crime and that but for such impairment, the crime would not have been committed.”
6. Resignation by MLA will not eradicate the effect of disqualification.
Case Title- Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil and Ors. v Hon'ble Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly, SC, 2019
Relevant Law- Schedule 10, Indian Constitution
Facts- The writ petitions were filed under Article 32 of the Constitution against the orders passed by the speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly regarding disqualification, wherein Speaker rejected the resignation of the members asserting that they were not voluntary or genuine, disqualified all the Petitioners, till the end of 15th Legislative Assembly term.
Issues-
- Does the Speaker have the power to disqualify the members for the rest of the term?
- Whether the order of the Speaker rejecting the resignation and disqualifying the Petitioners by the Constitution?
Held- The speaker’s role concerning resignation is limited to examining whether such resignation was tendered voluntarily or genuinely. The Court also observed that a legislator could not escape the effect of disqualification by tendering an application of resignation. The Constitution doesn’t vest power on the Speaker to disqualify a member for the end of the term. However, the disqualified member is subjected to sanction under Articles 75(1B), 164(1B), and 361B of the Constitution.
7. Landlord Tenant Agreements are arbitrable.
Case Title - Vidya Drolia and others v Durga Trading Corporation, SC, 2020
Relevant Law- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Facts- A reference was made by a Division Bench while considering the appeal against the Calcutta High Court order appointing an arbitrator in a dispute between landlord and tenant.
Held- A three-Judge Bench overruled the 2017 judgment in the Himangni Enterprises case to hold that landlord-tenant disputes are arbitrable except when they are covered by a specific forum created by rent control laws. The rationale behind the decision was that the landlord-tenant disputes are not actions in rem but pertain to subordinate rights in personam that arise from rights in rem. The Court also stated that such landlord-tenant would not be arbitrable if exclusive jurisdiction were vested in special courts and forums to decide such matters.
8. Rendering section 124A of IPC ineffective
Case Title - SG Vombatkere vs. U.O.I, SC, 2022
Facts- Petitions were filed challenging the constitutionality of section 124A of IPC which is about sedition.
Relevant Law- Section 124A of Indian Penal Code, 1860
Held- The Court observed that the sedition law was made when India was under colonial rule and the said law is not in tune with current social time. While balancing sovereignty and integrity on the one hand and civil liberty on the other, the Court found that sedition law is misused. While directing the Court to re-examine the said provision, the Court passed an order restraining the government from invoking section 124A of IPC. Furthermore, all pending trials, appeals, and proceedings concerning the charge framed under Section 124A of IPC be kept in abeyance.