N V Ramana to retire today: A look at his landmark judgements

A day before his retirement, Chief Justice of India (CJI) N V Ramana heard a number of important cases on Thursday, including pleas challenging the release of 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano case and the Pegasus spyware matter.

Justice Ramana has been vocal about the non-filling up of judicial vacancies and not improving the judicial infrastructure as the main reason for the pendency of cases in the country. He has also emphasised access to justice for the people from the weaker sections of society.

Ramana has minced no words in criticising the government while speaking at public fora and also tried to decide matters of constitutional salience -- on May 11, a bench headed by him put on hold the colonial-era penal provision of sedition, saying the court is cognizant of the integrity of the state on one hand, and the civil liberties of citizens on the other.

He is the 48th CJI who succeeded Justice SA Bobde on April 24, 2021. During his tenure in the Supreme Court, he has been a part of 657 benches and authored 174 judgements.

Here’s a look at some landmark judgements he has been a part of:

Value to women's housework:

In January 2021, an SC bench involving Justice N V Ramana and Surya Kant had rules that a woman doing housework is no less than her husband’s office work. Justice N V Ramana had said that housewives need to be paid on the basis of services rendered by them in the house.

Internet shutdown in Kashmir:

While hearing the petitions related to the internet shutdown in Jammu and Kashmir, Ramana noted that the internet cannot be stopped and that a periodic review must be done. The court also observed that prohibitory orders under Sec 144 of the CrPC are not to be imposed in order to suppress the legitimate expression of opinion or grievance or while exercising democratic rights.

National Food Security Act:

In Swaraj Abhiyan v Union of India, Ramana noted the need for cooperative federalism in the implementation of the National Food Security Act. The Court observed that the “Government of India cannot plead helplessness in requiring State Governments to implement parliamentary laws.”

Proving mental disorder

In the 2020 Md. Anwar v State of NCT of Delhi case, a three-judge bench with Justice Ramana ruled that to successfully claim defence of mental unsoundness in court, the accused would have to show that they suffered from a serious mental disease or infirmity that affected his/ her ability to distinguish right from wrong. “Mere production of photocopy of an OPD card and statement of mother on affidavit have little, if any, evidentiary value,” the bench had held.