Nuthalapati Venkata Ramana was born on 27th August 1957 in an agrarian family and is the 48th Chief Justice of India. Formerly he was a student activist fighting for civil liberties during the Emergency and a separate Andhra state in the 1970s. He would later speak about the long-running effect the Emergency had on young people at the time, recounting his struggles with academics and his mental health in the aftermath. After a brief period as a journalist for Eenadu, i.e., the largest Telugu daily newspaper, he enrolled as an advocate on February 10th, 1983. CJI NV Ramana also served as Additional Standing Counsel for the Central Government and Standing Counsel for Railways in the Central Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad. He, too, served as the Additional Advocate General of Andhra Pradesh.
On 27th June 2000, he became a permanent Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. On 2nd September 2013, he was appointed the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, and on 17th February 2014, he became a judge in the Supreme Court of India. In March 2021, then Chief Justice SA Bobde of the Supreme Court recommended him as his successor to the post of Chief Justice. NV Ramana was appointed the 48th Chief Justice of India by President Ram Nath Kovind on 6 April 2021. Recently CJI NV Ramana received a Doctor of Law (Honoris Causa) Degree from Osmania University.
Commenting
that honouring plurality is a key aspect of sustaining our democracy, CJI NV
Ramana said, “Instead of fostering the feeling of ‘othering’, our education
should lead us where we can nurture diversity. Our student must be aware
about the basic laws and principles that govern the land. The citizens must
connect with our constitution because it is our ultimate safeguard. That is why
I insist on propagation of constitutional culture. It is high time for all
institutions, to introduce a subject on the basic ideas about constitution and
governance, irrespective of the stream of learning. The ideas of the constitution
need to be simplified for everyone’s understanding and empowerment. A
participatory democracy thrives when its citizens are able to make informed
choices. The ultimate goal of our education should be enable us to make
informed choices”.[i]
CJI NV Ramana will retire after serving an 8-year term at the Apex Court. During his tenure so far, he has sat on 657 Benches and authored 174 judgments. Below are the landmark judgements or observations made by CJI NV Ramana during his tenure as CJI
Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Criminal) No(s). 314 of 2021
What is Pegasus? The malicious software, often categorized as spyware, was discovered to have been used surreptitiously to monitor and spy on many public personalities in India. It is meant to access devices without user awareness and collect and send personal data to whoever the software is used to spy on. A three-member expert committee was appointed by the Supreme Court to probe the Pegasus surveillance scandal. The expert committee is examining twenty-nine mobile devices. The Court has considered the report submitted by the Committee. Out of twenty-nine mobiles, the Committee found malware in five mobile phones.
Amazon.com v. Future Ltd
The Key issues of the case were whether Amazon has control over Future Retail through its shareholder agreement with Future Coupon and whether the sale of FRL to Reliance breached FCPL’s shareholder agreement with Amazon.[ii] The Bench comprising Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli has allowed the arbitration proceedings between Amazon and Future Retail Limited (FRL) before the Singapore International Arbitration Tribunal to continue. FRL argued that obtaining NCLT approval is a 15-step process which takes six to eight months. Further, since the CCI revoked the Amazon-FCPL, the arbitration before SIAC is nullified. Amazon argued that FRL has previously completed 8 out of 15 steps and that the six-to-eight-month projection will not apply to FRL. Also, FRL did not challenge the SIAC emergency order before the SC, and it is still binding on them. The Supreme Court allowed FRL to approach the Delhi High Court to allow the continuation of the NCLT proceedings.
The key issue of the case was whether the Chairman of Rajya Sabha’s decision to reject an impeachment motion open to Judicial Review. The Chairman of the Rajya Sabha rejected an impeachment motion against a judge despite the motion having the support of the requisite number of MPs. On 20th April, 71 MPs from 7 Opposition parties, led by Congress, moved a motion for the impeachment of the CJI, accusing him of corruption, misuse of authority and failure to protect the independence of the judiciary. The Judges Inquiry Act, 1968 requires at least a minimum of 50 MPs from the Rajya Sabha or 100 MPs from the Lok Sabha to issue a notice to the Chairman or Speaker of the Lok Sabha in order to start impeachment proceedings against a judge.
The Chairman of the Rajya Sabha Mr Venkaiah Naidu, rejected the impeachment motion. Mr Naidu concluded that the motion for impeachment might be accepted only in cases of “proved misbehaviour” under Article 124(4) of the Constitution. He emphasized that the petition for impeachment presented by the MPs indicates “a mere suspicion, a conjecture or an assumption.” Afterwards, 2 Congress MPs, Pratap Singh Bajwa and Amee Harshadyak Yajnik, challenged the rejection of the impeachment motion by the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha before the Supreme Court.
In Re Cognizance For Extension of Limitation, LL 2021 SC 498
The Supreme Court has recalled the suo motu order of April 27, 2021, which had extended with effect from March 14, 2021, the limitation period for filing of cases given the COVID second wave. The Court said that the suo motu extension of the limitation period would be withdrawn from October 2, 2021. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices L Nageswara Rao and Surya Kant made these observations in the suo motu case In Re Cognizance For Extension of Limitation.
The issue was whether the accused could be held liable u/s 397 of Indian Penal Code since there was no evidence to indicate the use of a firearm during the commission of the crime. The Bench comprising CJI Ramana, Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli has stated- firstly, it is clear that the use of the weapon to establish the offence u/s 397 IPC doesn’t require that the ‘offender’ should fire from the firearm or stab if it is a knife or a dagger but the mere exhibition of the same, brandishing or holding it openly to threaten and create fear or apprehension in the mind of the victim is sufficient. The other aspect is that if the charge of committing the offence is alleged against all the accused and only one among the ‘offenders’ had used the firearm, or deadly weapon, only such of the ‘offender’ who has used the firearm or deadly weapon alone would be liable to be charged under Section 397 IPC. Though the above would be the effect and scope of Section 397 IPC as a separate provision, the application of the same will arise in the totality of the allegation and the consequent framed charge, and the accused would be tried for such charge. Thus in the teeth of the offence under Section 397 IPC applying to the offender alone, the variability of the same will also have to be noted if the charge against the accused under Sections 34, 149 IPC and such other provisions of law, which may become relevant, is also invoked along with Section 397 IPC. In such an event, it will have to be looked at differently in the totality of the facts, evidence and circumstances involved in that case and the provisions invoked in that particular case to frame a charge against the accused. In the instant case, the charge under Section 34 IPC was not framed against the appellant, nor was such an allegation raised and proved against the appellant. Hence, the benefit of the interpretation raised on the scope of Section 397 IPC to hold the aggressor alone as guilty will be available to the appellant if there is no specific allegation against him.
The Bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice AS Bopanna has altered a sentence of conviction under the Negotiable Instrument Act in a 25-year-old dispute by doing away with simple imprisonment and enhancing fine. The Apex Court reaffirmed that the gravity of a complaint for an offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act could not be equated with an offence under the Indian Penal Code or other criminal offences.
CJI Ramana commented on the colonial history of sedition law. He asked whether a law used to suppress freedom fighters such as M.K. Gandhi and B.G. Tilak was required in an independent country. He observed that even though conviction rates under Section 124A were very low, the provision continues to be used to scare and intimidate individuals. Thus in the present case, the Bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justice Hima Kohli and Surya Kant has asked the Central and State government to refrain from registering any cases for the offence of sedition under section 124A of the Indian Penal code. Thus the Apex Court stated all pending trials, appeals and proceedings concerning the charge framed u/s 124A of IPC be kept in abeyance.[viii]
The Bench
comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari and Justice
Hima Kohli has imposed a cost of rupees 1 lakh on the Union Government for
incorrectly stating the name of a coal mining company in the list of the
illegal coal block allotments made in the ‘Coalgate’ scam.
The Apex Court has noted that the petitioner company, i.e. BLA Industries Pvt Ltd, had applied via the legal route, following the procedure under the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act), and that it was granted the mining lease by the lease by the State of Madhya Pradesh, after the approval of the Central Government on 21st May 1998.
The Special Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana, Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice J.B. Pardiwala has directed the status quo to be maintained for five weeks in the matter related to OBC reservations in Maharashtra local elections. This means that the OBC quota cannot be implemented for the time being in 367 local bodies where the election process has already been notified.
Meenakshi Choubey is an Advocate registered under the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa and has done her LLM from NMIMS University, Mumbai, and BA LLB from GH Raisoni Law College, RTMNU Univerisity.
Disclaimer: The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the text belong solely to the author and not to the Jurisedge Academy.
You can access our Recent Legal News Archives and our Blogs on legal updates from around the globe.
[i] https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/cji-nv-ramana-convocation-address-osmania-university-82nd-convocation-205869
[ii] https://www.scobserver.in/cases/amazon-future-reliance-dispute-amazon-com-nv-investment-holdings-v-future-retail-ltd/
Related
Jurisedge Academy
Share post:
Nuthalapati Venkata Ramana was born on 27th August 1957 in an agrarian family and is the 48th Chief Justice of India. Formerly he was a student activist fighting for civil liberties during the Emergency and a separate Andhra state in the 1970s. He would later speak about the long-running effect the Emergency had on young people at the time, recounting his struggles with academics and his mental health in the aftermath. After a brief period as a journalist for Eenadu, i.e., the largest Telugu daily newspaper, he enrolled as an advocate on February 10th, 1983. CJI NV Ramana also served as Additional Standing Counsel for the Central Government and Standing Counsel for Railways in the Central Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad. He, too, served as the Additional Advocate General of Andhra Pradesh.
On 27th June 2000, he became a permanent Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. On 2nd September 2013, he was appointed the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, and on 17th February 2014, he became a judge in the Supreme Court of India. In March 2021, then Chief Justice SA Bobde of the Supreme Court recommended him as his successor to the post of Chief Justice. NV Ramana was appointed the 48th Chief Justice of India by President Ram Nath Kovind on 6 April 2021. Recently CJI NV Ramana received a Doctor of Law (Honoris Causa) Degree from Osmania University.
Commenting that honouring plurality is a key aspect of sustaining our democracy, CJI NV Ramana said, “Instead of fostering the feeling of ‘othering’, our education should lead us where we can nurture diversity. Our student must be aware about the basic laws and principles that govern the land. The citizens must connect with our constitution because it is our ultimate safeguard. That is why I insist on propagation of constitutional culture. It is high time for all institutions, to introduce a subject on the basic ideas about constitution and governance, irrespective of the stream of learning. The ideas of the constitution need to be simplified for everyone’s understanding and empowerment. A participatory democracy thrives when its citizens are able to make informed choices. The ultimate goal of our education should be enable us to make informed choices”.[i]
CJI NV Ramana will retire after serving an 8-year term at the Apex Court. During his tenure so far, he has sat on 657 Benches and authored 174 judgments. Below are the landmark judgements or observations made by CJI NV Ramana during his tenure as CJI
Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Criminal) No(s). 314 of 2021
What is Pegasus? The malicious software, often categorized as spyware, was discovered to have been used surreptitiously to monitor and spy on many public personalities in India. It is meant to access devices without user awareness and collect and send personal data to whoever the software is used to spy on. A three-member expert committee was appointed by the Supreme Court to probe the Pegasus surveillance scandal. The expert committee is examining twenty-nine mobile devices. The Court has considered the report submitted by the Committee. Out of twenty-nine mobiles, the Committee found malware in five mobile phones.
Amazon.com v. Future Ltd
The Key issues of the case were whether Amazon has control over Future Retail through its shareholder agreement with Future Coupon and whether the sale of FRL to Reliance breached FCPL’s shareholder agreement with Amazon.[ii] The Bench comprising Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli has allowed the arbitration proceedings between Amazon and Future Retail Limited (FRL) before the Singapore International Arbitration Tribunal to continue. FRL argued that obtaining NCLT approval is a 15-step process which takes six to eight months. Further, since the CCI revoked the Amazon-FCPL, the arbitration before SIAC is nullified. Amazon argued that FRL has previously completed 8 out of 15 steps and that the six-to-eight-month projection will not apply to FRL. Also, FRL did not challenge the SIAC emergency order before the SC, and it is still binding on them. The Supreme Court allowed FRL to approach the Delhi High Court to allow the continuation of the NCLT proceedings.
Partap Singh Bajwa v Chairman Rajya Sabha
The key issue of the case was whether the Chairman of Rajya Sabha’s decision to reject an impeachment motion open to Judicial Review. The Chairman of the Rajya Sabha rejected an impeachment motion against a judge despite the motion having the support of the requisite number of MPs. On 20th April, 71 MPs from 7 Opposition parties, led by Congress, moved a motion for the impeachment of the CJI, accusing him of corruption, misuse of authority and failure to protect the independence of the judiciary. The Judges Inquiry Act, 1968 requires at least a minimum of 50 MPs from the Rajya Sabha or 100 MPs from the Lok Sabha to issue a notice to the Chairman or Speaker of the Lok Sabha in order to start impeachment proceedings against a judge.
The Chairman of the Rajya Sabha Mr Venkaiah Naidu, rejected the impeachment motion. Mr Naidu concluded that the motion for impeachment might be accepted only in cases of “proved misbehaviour” under Article 124(4) of the Constitution. He emphasized that the petition for impeachment presented by the MPs indicates “a mere suspicion, a conjecture or an assumption.” Afterwards, 2 Congress MPs, Pratap Singh Bajwa and Amee Harshadyak Yajnik, challenged the rejection of the impeachment motion by the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha before the Supreme Court.
In Re Cognizance For Extension of Limitation, LL 2021 SC 498
The Supreme Court has recalled the suo motu order of April 27, 2021, which had extended with effect from March 14, 2021, the limitation period for filing of cases given the COVID second wave. The Court said that the suo motu extension of the limitation period would be withdrawn from October 2, 2021. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices L Nageswara Rao and Surya Kant made these observations in the suo motu case In Re Cognizance For Extension of Limitation.
Ram Ratan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC Online SC 1279
The issue was whether the accused could be held liable u/s 397 of Indian Penal Code since there was no evidence to indicate the use of a firearm during the commission of the crime. The Bench comprising CJI Ramana, Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli has stated- firstly, it is clear that the use of the weapon to establish the offence u/s 397 IPC doesn’t require that the ‘offender’ should fire from the firearm or stab if it is a knife or a dagger but the mere exhibition of the same, brandishing or holding it openly to threaten and create fear or apprehension in the mind of the victim is sufficient. The other aspect is that if the charge of committing the offence is alleged against all the accused and only one among the ‘offenders’ had used the firearm, or deadly weapon, only such of the ‘offender’ who has used the firearm or deadly weapon alone would be liable to be charged under Section 397 IPC. Though the above would be the effect and scope of Section 397 IPC as a separate provision, the application of the same will arise in the totality of the allegation and the consequent framed charge, and the accused would be tried for such charge. Thus in the teeth of the offence under Section 397 IPC applying to the offender alone, the variability of the same will also have to be noted if the charge against the accused under Sections 34, 149 IPC and such other provisions of law, which may become relevant, is also invoked along with Section 397 IPC. In such an event, it will have to be looked at differently in the totality of the facts, evidence and circumstances involved in that case and the provisions invoked in that particular case to frame a charge against the accused. In the instant case, the charge under Section 34 IPC was not framed against the appellant, nor was such an allegation raised and proved against the appellant. Hence, the benefit of the interpretation raised on the scope of Section 397 IPC to hold the aggressor alone as guilty will be available to the appellant if there is no specific allegation against him.
Triyambak S. Hegde v. Sripad, (2022) 1 SCC 742
The Bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice AS Bopanna has altered a sentence of conviction under the Negotiable Instrument Act in a 25-year-old dispute by doing away with simple imprisonment and enhancing fine. The Apex Court reaffirmed that the gravity of a complaint for an offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act could not be equated with an offence under the Indian Penal Code or other criminal offences.
SG Vombatkere v. Union of India, (2022) 7 SCC 433
CJI Ramana commented on the colonial history of sedition law. He asked whether a law used to suppress freedom fighters such as M.K. Gandhi and B.G. Tilak was required in an independent country. He observed that even though conviction rates under Section 124A were very low, the provision continues to be used to scare and intimidate individuals. Thus in the present case, the Bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justice Hima Kohli and Surya Kant has asked the Central and State government to refrain from registering any cases for the offence of sedition under section 124A of the Indian Penal code. Thus the Apex Court stated all pending trials, appeals and proceedings concerning the charge framed u/s 124A of IPC be kept in abeyance.[viii]
BLA Industries Pvt Ltd v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1025
The Bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Hima Kohli has imposed a cost of rupees 1 lakh on the Union Government for incorrectly stating the name of a coal mining company in the list of the illegal coal block allotments made in the ‘Coalgate’ scam.
The Apex Court has noted that the petitioner company, i.e. BLA Industries Pvt Ltd, had applied via the legal route, following the procedure under the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act), and that it was granted the mining lease by the lease by the State of Madhya Pradesh, after the approval of the Central Government on 21st May 1998.
Rahul Ramesh Wagh v. State of Maharashtra, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).19756/2021
The Special Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana, Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice J.B. Pardiwala has directed the status quo to be maintained for five weeks in the matter related to OBC reservations in Maharashtra local elections. This means that the OBC quota cannot be implemented for the time being in 367 local bodies where the election process has already been notified.
Meenakshi Choubey is an Advocate registered under the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa and has done her LLM from NMIMS University, Mumbai, and BA LLB from GH Raisoni Law College, RTMNU Univerisity.
Disclaimer: The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the text belong solely to the author and not to the Jurisedge Academy.
You can access our Recent Legal News Archives and our Blogs on legal updates from around the globe.
For daily legal updates, you may follow us on Instagram and LinkedIn and join our Telegram channel.
[i] https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/cji-nv-ramana-convocation-address-osmania-university-82nd-convocation-205869
[ii] https://www.scobserver.in/cases/amazon-future-reliance-dispute-amazon-com-nv-investment-holdings-v-future-retail-ltd/
Share this:
Related
Notable Judgment of CJI Dr D.Y. Chandrachud
Chief Justice of India is the highest rank of a judicial officer in the Supreme Court. The rank ought to bring huge responsibility on the shoulders of the appointed Chief. read more…
Share this:
Tenure of 49th CJI Uday Umesh Lalit
CJI U.U Lalit was sworn in as the 49th Chief Justice of India, having a short tenure of 74 days. Despite a short tenure, CJI U.U Lalit has done a. read more…
Share this: