{"id":153330,"date":"2021-04-06T16:36:42","date_gmt":"2021-04-06T11:06:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/?p=153330"},"modified":"2021-04-06T17:12:21","modified_gmt":"2021-04-06T11:42:21","slug":"nv-ramana-new-cji-noteworthy-judgments","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/top-news-of-the-day\/news\/nv-ramana-new-cji-noteworthy-judgments\/","title":{"rendered":"Justice NV Ramana’s noteworthy judgments"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Justice Nuthalapati Venkata Ramana was elevated to the Supreme Court in February 2014. During his tenure, Justice Ramana has been proactively shaping the jurisprudence. Justice Ramana\u2019s multi-faceted journey can be seen through the gamut of judgments he has penned. His judgments are simple, clear and are balanced to cater to the needs of society. Justice Ramana has authored over 156 judgments ranging a wide gamut of issues, during his tenure in the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Constitutional Law<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India<\/em><\/strong>, Justice Ramana expounded on the nature of fundamental rights and declared that the right to freedom of speech and expression over the internet is a fundamental right. This judgment ensured the eventual return of internet in the Kashmir Valley and acknowledged the ever-changing nature of fundamental rights. Additionally, the Court also laid down certain parameters with respect to curfews and held that \u201cSection 144 CrPC cannot be used to suppress legitimate expression of opinion or grievance or exercise of any democratic rights<\/em>\u201d.<\/li>
  2. In Foundation for Media Professionals v. State (UT OF J&K)<\/em><\/strong>,the Supreme Court balanced the fundamental rights and the concerns of the State security and appointed a Special Committee to ensure that restrictions, if required, are narrowly tailored and not permanent in nature.<\/li>
  3. In Dr. Shah Faesal&Ors. etc. etc. Versus Union of India & Anr.<\/em><\/strong>, the Supreme Court was faced with the issue of reference to a larger bench. The Court held that, \u201c[w]hen substantial judicial time and resources are spent on references, the same should not be made in a casual or cavalier manner\u201d<\/em>.<\/li>
  4. While sitting in a five-judge bench in Supreme Court of India v. Subash Chandra Agarwal<\/em><\/strong>, Justice Ramana held that \u201c\u2026the 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.<\/em>\u201d<\/li>
  5. In Swaraj Abhiyan (V) v. Union of India<\/em><\/strong>, Justice Ramana expounded on the nature of federalism in a welfare state.  While dealing with the implementation of National Food Security Act, he propounded need for cooperative federalism. He has issued subsequent directions in order to ensure right to food for all in India and to help India achieve its nutritional goal<\/li>
  6. In Jindal Stainless Ltd. v. State of Haryana<\/em><\/strong>, he wrote a concurring opinion as a part of a Nine-Judge Bench to overrule the five decade old decisions in Atiabari Tea<\/em> Case and Automobile Transport<\/em> Case. He expounded on the taxing power of the State with respect to right to trade and commerce. It may be noted that Supreme Court overruled a seven-decade-old decision to uphold imposition of entry tax. Such measures was seen as beneficial for State Governments to increase their fiscal status.<\/li>
  7. Justice Ramana\u2019s opinion in Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil v. Karnataka Legislative Assembly <\/em><\/strong>was seen as a decisive statement of the law on the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution which was riddled with confusion and contradicting opinions. He observed that for political functionaries, \u201c\u2026merely 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\u201d<\/em>.<\/li>
  8. In Shiv Sena v. Union of India<\/em><\/strong>, Justice Ramana highlighted the importance of floor test to curtail unlawful practices such as horse trading and to effectuate smooth running of democracy. The direction to conduct an immediate floor test in the political logjam created post election in Maharashtra, led to quick and effective justice and was hailed for stopping horse trading in the State.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Commercial Laws, Arbitration and Taxation<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n