Justice Ramana appointed as next CJI



New Delhi

Senior-most Supreme Court judge Justice Nuthalapati Venkata Ramana was on Tuesday appointed as the next Chief Justice of India.

According to a notification issued by the government, Justice Ramana would take over as the 48th CJI on April 24 after incumbent CJI S A Bobde demits office a day before.

Justice Ramana would retire on August 26, 2022.

 “In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (2) of Article 124 of the Constitution of India, the President is pleased to appoint Shri Justice Nuthalapati Venkata Ramana, Judge of the Supreme Court, to be the Chief Justice of India with effect from 24th April, 2021,” the notification read.

As per convention, Prime Minister’s principal secretary P K Mishra and secretary (justice) in the law ministry Barun Mitra handed over the warrant of appointment signed by the President to Justice Ramana this morning, sources said.

Justice Bobde had recently recommended Justice Ramana as his successor in keeping with convention and norms of seniority. 

The CJI’s recommendation to the Union government had came on a day when the Supreme Court had made public its decision to dismiss a complaint of Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy against Justice Ramana after giving the matter “due consideration”.

As per norms, a written communication from the incumbent Chief Justice is sent a month before his retirement.

Born on August 27, 1957 in Ponnavaram village of Andhra Pradesh’s Krishna district, Justice Ramana was enrolled as an advocate on February 10, 1983.

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice Ramana had in March last year declined to refer to a larger seven-judge bench a batch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the Centre’s decision to abrogate provisions of Article 370.

He was part of a five-judge Constitution bench which had in November 2019 held that office of the CJI is a public authority under the Right to Information Act.

In the November 2019 verdict, the top court had also said that “judicial independence has to be kept in mind” while disclosing information in “public interest”.