a public judge with an uncertain legacy

Justice Nuthalapathi Venkata Ramana was 48th Chief Justice of India (CJI) And in 1966-67, Justice K. Only the second judge from Andhra Pradesh to hold the post after Subba Rao. He was appointed to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in June 2000 while the Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance was in power and came to the Supreme Court in February 2014, the last to be appointed by the Congress-led United was one of the judges. Progressive Coalition Government. His tenure as CJI for a year, 124 days began with widespread hope that an extremely strong executive would be held accountable and that the most important constitutional issues of our times would be heard and decided upon. However, as is now clear, it did not last and it became a term that promised so much and delivered little on those fronts.

institutional malaise

One of the most significant flaws in Justice Ramana’s leadership came from his own farewell remarks. For an outgoing CJI to admit and apologize for the breakdown of listing and posting of cases shows a deep institutional malaise. It is curious that he apologized for not paying much attention to the listing process and it is equally curious that the incoming CJI Justice UU Lalit immediately identified reforms in the listing process as an urgent area of ​​concern. The contrast, prioritizing the enlistment process over curriculum reform, presents a very strange picture for those of us who look at the court from the outside. While this may seem insignificant to the general public, it is actually these listing and allotment processes that decide what gets decided in the Supreme Court and who decides.

To effectively understand the legacy of Justice Ramana, it is important to understand the current situation in the Supreme Court when he took over as the CJI. After various controversies affecting the tenures of Justices Dipak Misra, Ranjan Gogoi and SA Bobde as CJI, the Supreme Court as an institution was significantly weakened. The lead-up to his CJI tenure in the early parts of 2021 and the first few months as CJI were seen as optimistic indicators of a revival. Orders on bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), correcting gaps in the dowry death law, medical aid to Siddiqui Kappan and powerful speeches on criticism, discontent in democracy and the need for protection from tyranny were sources of hope.

quite disappointing

However, Justice Ramana’s judicial contribution as CJI was disappointing. His orders to keep the sedition law in abeyance and withhold its further use until its constitutional validity is determined will probably be his most enduring judicial legacy as CJI. His judgment is also significant for the arbitrary and widespread criminalization of the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, but it is clear that Justice Ramana avoided constitutional questions that were political minefields. Cases on electoral bonds, constitutional validity of Citizenship (Amendment) Act, dilution of Article 370, ban on hijab in schools, reservation for economically weaker sections and Aadhaar amendment raised important constitutional questions that needed immediate resolution but listed were not.

The Pegasus hearing showed the difficulty the Court is currently facing in obtaining a reply from the Executive. Just as only very limited parts of the Pegasus Committee report were disclosed, the disturbing trend of secrecy and opacity in such cases actually continues. Prioritizing the ‘free gift’ case in the last few days of his tenure was to complicate this approach. In a case where the jurisdiction and competence of the Court is questionable, spending significant judicial time on it gives strange signals.

In many ways, his judicial legacy as a Supreme Court judge appears to carry more weight than his legacy as CJI. Justice Ramana’s orders on internet restrictions in Kashmir, bringing the CJI’s office under the Right to Information (RTI) Act and his track record on capital punishment indicated the potential for deep constitutional thinking that ultimately did not deliver. Notably, his decision in Accused X put forward the law that issues of mental illness must be considered during sentencing.

bright spots in administration

It is perhaps on the administrative side that Justice Raman has left his most enduring legacy. Before taking over as CJI, there was a 22-month stalemate on the recommendations of the collegium. As CJI, he ensured 11 appointments to the Supreme Court (nine at a time) and over 200 appointments to various High Courts. As part of this, Justice Ramana has also ended up ensuring that India will have its first woman CJI in Justice BV Nagarathna between September-October 2027. However, on the appointment of judges during his tenure, two issues raised significant concerns. The failure to elevate Justice Akil Qureshi to the Supreme Court despite his seniority, performance and prestige and the decision to transfer Justice Sanjib Banerjee from the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court (with a strength of 75 judges) to the Meghalaya High Court (four judges) with) wanted answers that never came. Another issue that has received little attention is the appointment of Nagendra Ramachandra Naik, Aditya Sondhi (who has recused himself from consideration) as a Karnataka High Court judge and Saurabh Kripal as a Delhi High Court judge. has opposed. These issues with promotions, transfers and appointments reflect the complex relationship between the court and the government. In that light, ensuring over 200 appointments is no easy task and it demonstrates the ability of the government to navigate the difficult waters.

some faultlines

Justice Ramana was appointed as a judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in June 2000, when he was the Additional Advocate General of the Andhra Pradesh government led by Chandrababu Naidu (Telugu Desam Party). Ram Jethmalani was then the Union Law Minister under the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government and more than a decade later, in February 2013, interesting facts emerged about the appointment of Justice Ramana. The Supreme Court was hearing Ram Jethmalani’s plea, which said that Justice Ramana cannot continue as a High Court judge. A Supreme Court bench of Justices Aftab Alam and Ranjana Desai pointed out to Ram Jethmalani that it was under his leadership that the Law Ministry pushed for the appointment of Justice Ramana, while it was twice rejected by the Supreme Court Collegium (as documented by V. Venkatesan).

Another controversy that affected Justice Ramana’s tenure in the Supreme Court is the complaint and investigation into the purchase of land at very low prices by his daughters in the Amaravati capital region of divided Andhra Pradesh. In September 2020 (through the then Chief Justice JK Maheshwari) the orders of the Andhra Pradesh High Court banning media to stop reporting on the matter were completely unwarranted. Though the Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s gag order, the situation was further worsened by complaints made by Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy against Justice Ramana. This forced the Supreme Court to launch an in-house inquiry which ultimately dismissed the complaints. Through a brief statement issued by the court, the complaints were dismissed and it was announced that the investigation report would remain confidential. The fact that Justice Ramana was hearing a case that sought expediting the trial of corruption cases involving Members of Parliament/Members of Legislative Assemblies and the likely consequences of the corruption cases against YS Jagan Mohan Reddy made the whole episode suspicious.

Justice Ramana has probably been the most visible CJI in the history of the Supreme Court. One of the most important images of his tenure is that of him, after taking over as CJI in December 2021, on a visit to his village in Krishna district, riding a decorated bullock cart with a large number of people around him. . The unprecedented intensity and extent of Justice Ramana’s reporting involving public engagements, including the contribution of op-ed pages in national newspapers, speaks to an attempt to redefine the relationship between the CJI, the Supreme Court and the people of this country. However, because of this extended exposure, it seemed that the CJI’s transformative constitutional vision was more pronounced inside the court than inside the court. Perhaps the most enduring question of Justice Raman’s legacy will be why he could not bring a transformative constitutional approach to the Chief Justice’s court.

Anoop Surendranath is Professor of Law at National Law University, Delhi. Research Support by Ayan Gupta