President Ram Nath Kovind on Tuesday formally issued a warrant appointing Justice Nuthalapati Venkata Ramana, who had ruled against the Narendra Modi government over the Internet restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir, as the 48th Chief Justice of India from April 24.

Justice Ramana will take over after current CJI Sharad Arvind Bobde retires on April 23, and will continue in the top post till August 26, 2022.

Below are some of the key judgments that Justice Ramana, a former journalist, has authored since his elevation to the apex court in February 2014.

Freedom, democracy

⚫ In Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India (2020), the judgment ensured the eventual return of Internet connectivity in Jammu and Kashmir —where it had been curbed since August 2019 — by linking it to the fundamental right of free speech.

The bench also laid down certain parameters on curfews, holding that “Section 144 CrPC (which bans assemblies of more than five people) cannot be used to suppress legitimate expression of opinion or grievance or exercise of any democratic rights”.

⚫ In Foundation for Media Professionals v State (Union Territory of J&K), 2020, the judgment struck a balance between the fundamental rights and the concerns of State security and appointed a committee to ensure that any restrictions, if required, are narrowly tailored and not permanent in nature. It reiterated the Bhasin verdict’s push for the return of Internet to Kashmir.

⚫ As part of a five-judge bench in Supreme Court of India v Subash Chandra Agarwal, Justice Ramana held: “The right to information and right to privacy are at an equal footing. There is no requirement to take an a priori view that one right trumps other.”

The judgment boosted the case of RTI activists.

⚫ In Swaraj Abhiyan v Union of India, Justice Ramana stressed the need for cooperative federalism in the implementation of the National Food Security Act. He issued subsequent directions to ensure the right to food for all.

Dignity, empowerment

⚫ In Kirti v Oriental Insurance this year, Justice Ramana’s opinion was key to recognising homemakers’ contribution to the family and giving them an equal status with the earning members. Women’s organisations hailed the judgment.

⚫ In M/s Fortune Infrastructure (now M/s Hicon Infrastructure) & Anr v Trevor D’Lima & Ors, Justice Ramana held that a consumer must be given delivery of their flat within a reasonable time even in the absence of a specified contractual clause. He held a consumer was entitled to a refund and compensation if the developer failed to deliver.

⚫ In Accused X v State of Maharashtra, Justice Ramana saved an accused with acute mental illness from the gallows by ruling that the courts must consider the mental condition of accused after conviction.

“The right to dignity of an accused does not dry out with the judges’ ink, rather, it subsists well beyond the prison gates and operates until his last breath,” he wrote.

Politicians

⚫ In Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v Union of India, a bench that included Justice Ramana passed numerous directives to speed up criminal investigations and trials involving lawmakers.

⚫ In Shiv Sena v Union of India (2019), Justice Ramana highlighted the importance of the floor test to curtail the so-called practice of horse trading, and directed an immediate trust vote in Maharashtra.

⚫ In Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil v Karnataka Legislative Assembly (2019), Justice Ramana observed that for political functionaries, “merely taking the oath to protect and uphold the Constitution may not be sufficient, rather imbibing the constitutional values in everyday functioning is required and expected by the glorious document that is our Constitution”.

This was seen as a decisive statement on the Tenth Schedule, which was riddled with confusion and contradictory opinions.

Accountability

⚫ In PUDA v Vidya Chetal, the court held that even services rendered by statutory authorities can be brought under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, and adjudicated upon by consumer forums.

⚫ In Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah v the State of Gujarat, the court held that officials of a deemed university too performed public duties and therefore came under the ambit of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The judgment helped make higher education more transparent in India.

All business

⚫ In M/s Alcon Electronics v Celem SA, Justice Ramana paved the way for foreign decrees being executed in India. The business community hailed the judgment as crucial for international trade and commerce.

⚫ In Vidya Drolia v Durga Trading Corporation, his opinion has been cited as decreasing the burden on the courts by making arbitration more efficient in India.

⚫ In Sebi v Kanaiyalal Baldevbhai Patel, relating to insider trading, Justice Ramana examined practices such as hedging to rule that stockbrokers’ use of price-sensitive confidential information to pre-emptively buy or sell shares was illegal. Sebi amended the law in line with his suggestions.