Chief Justice of India SA Bobde has recommended the senior-most judge Justice NV Raman as the 48th Chief Justice of India keeping in mind the criteria and norms of his successor and seniority. CJI Bobde is due to retire on 23 April.
Justice Nathalapathy Venkata Raman was born on August 27, 1957 in an agricultural family in Ponnavaram village in the state of Andhra Pradesh.
He was nominated as a lawyer to the Bar on 10 February 1983, appointed as Permanent Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on 27 June 2000 and also as Acting Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Work was done. 10 March 2013 to 20 May 2013.
Justice Ramna was promoted as the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court with effect from September 2, 2013 and as the Judge of the Supreme Court of India from February 17, 2104.
Here are the historical decisions he has been a part of:
In January this year, a Supreme Court bench of Justices NV Ramana and Suryakant said that the value of a woman’s work in the house was not less than that of her office going husband. Justice Ramana first expanded that view by the SC in the Lata Wadhwa case in 2001 when it dealt with the issue of compensation for the victims of the fire during a ceremony and decided that it was based on services rendered to the housewife must be given. Them at home.
M. of NCT of Delhi. Anwar V. State, 2020: A 3-judge bench of N.V. Ramana, S.A. Nazir and Suryakant, stated that in order to successfully claim the defense of mental cruelty under Section 84 of the IPC, the accused would have to show up. By victimizing the possibility that he / she was suffering from a serious-enough mental illness or weakness, that affects the person’s ability to distinguish right from wrong. “The production of photocopies of an OPD card and very little, if any, explicit value of the mother’s statement on the affidavit.”
Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India, 2020: A 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, R Subhash Reddy and BR Gavai asked the Jammu and Kashmir administration to review all orders to curb telecom and internet services in the state in a week. Keep them in the public domain.
Foundation for Media Professionals. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, 2020: NV Ramana, R. A 3-judge bench of Subhash Reddy and BR Gavai constituted a three-member committee seeking permission to allow 4G mobile internet in the union. Area of Jammu and Kashmir.
Central Public Information Officer V. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, 2019: A 5-judge constitution bench of Ranjan Gogoi, NV Ramana, DY Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta and Sanjeev Khanna said that the office of the Chief Justice of India comes under its purview.
Roger Mathew v. South India Bank Limited, 2019: The 5-Judge Constitution Bench of Ranjan Gogoi, NV Ramana, DY Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta and Sanjeev Khanna upheld the validity of Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017 and said section of the legislative functions. K does not suffer from excessive delegation. The Court struck down the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and Other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2017, made under Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017, to be contrary to the parental act and principles. . In the constitution.
Jindal Stainless Ltd. v. State of Haryana, 2017: Bench of 9-judges, by 7: 2 majority, upheld validity of entry tax levied by states on goods imported from other states. T. s. Thakur, A.K. Sikri, S. A. Bobde, Shiva Kirti Singh, N. V. Ramana, R. Banumathi and A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ, while giving a majority view, states that states are empowered to design their own fiscal legislations.
Nabam Rebia, and Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker, 2016: Jagdish Singh Khehar, Deepak Mishra, Madan b. The 5-judge constitutional bench of Lokur, Pinaki Chandra Ghosh and NV Ramana rescinded the Governor’s order, postponing the 6th session. The Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly reads Article 174 of the Constitution of India for violation of Article 163, without consulting the Chief Minister, Council of Ministers or the Speaker for a month. Adi Shiva Sivachariarla Nala Sangam v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2016: The bench held that the appointment of archakas in temples would have to conform to their proper identity as well as constitutional mandates and principles, according to the proceeds. . Exclusion or appointment as an arbitrator would not violate Article 14, simply because it is not based on criteria for race, birth or any other constitutionally unacceptable parameter.
He has a keen interest in philosophy and literature apart from law.