Justice Nuthalapati Venkata Ramana, who had ruled against the Narendra Modi government over the Internet restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir and delivered several trend-setting judgments, was on Saturday elevated as the 48th Chief Justice of India.

President Ram Nath Kovind formally administered the oath of office and secrecy to Ramana at a brief event held at the Rashtrapathi Bhavan where Vice-President M. Venkaiah Naidu, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, outgoing CJI S.A. Bobde, judges of the Supreme Court and several other dignitaries were present.

A former journalist with one of the leading Telugu dailies Eenadu, Justice Ramana will have a tenure of 16 months and will retire on August 26, 2022.

In an interview to The Telegraph earlier this month, Justice Ramana had regretted that the nation, even after 74 years of Independence, continued to suffer from poverty and lack of access to justice for the downtrodden with a mind-boggling four crore cases pending across the courts in the country.

“We can assert true accessibility (justice to all) when the person with the maximum disadvantage can still knock on the doors of the court of justice,” Justice Ramana had said while urging the Centre and states to coordinate to create a National Judicial Infrastructure Corporation to tackle the problem of massive pendency.

Justice Ramana, known for his progressive views, is currently heading a bench monitoring the disposal of criminal cases against lawmakers within a year. He had passed a series of directives to the states to set up special courts to deal with the cases on a priority basis.

Justice Ramana has been a part of a number of landmark judgments. Some of them are listed below:

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.

⚫ 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.

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 the 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 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.

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.