Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India
Assumed Office17th Feb, 2014
Retired On26th Aug, 2022
Judge of the Supreme Court of IndiaFebruary 17th 2014 - April 24th 021
Chief Justice of the Delhi High CourtSeptember 2nd 2013 - February 16th 2014
Acting Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High CourtMarch 10th 2013 - May 20th 2013
Permanent Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High CourtJune 27th 2000 - September 1st 2013
EnrolmentFebruary 10th 1983
Chief Justice Ramana has practiced in the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Andhra Pradesh and Central Administrative Tribunals and the Supreme Court, specialising in constitutional, criminal, service and inter-state river laws. He served as Additional Standing Counsel for the Central Government and Standing Counsel for Railways in the Central Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad. He also served as Additional Advocate General of Andhra Pradesh.
In 2000, Ramana CJ was appointed as a permanent Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and in 2013, he was its Acting Chief Justice. He was appointed as the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court in September 2013. In February 2014 he was elevated as a judge of the Supreme Court.
Ramana CJ became the Chief Justice of India in April 2021, succeeding Chief Justice Bobde.
In Jindal Stainless Steel v State of Haryana (2016) a nine-judge bench upheld the validity of states’ entry tax on goods entering from other states. Ramana J was a part of the 7 judge majority which held that it is constitutional for states to impose tax on goods imported from other states to protect local goods from undue discrimination.
Ramana J wrote a separate concurring opinion in Swaraj Abhiyan v Union of India (2017). He criticised the poor implementation of the National Food Security Act, 2013. He criticised the States for failing to appoint a District Level Grievance Officer and the State Food Commission, conduct social audits and establish State Vigilance Committees.
Ramana and AK Sikri JJ in Excel Crop Care Ltd v Competition Commission (2017) of India settled a critical issue in India’s antitrust jurisprudence. They upheld the principle of ‘relevant turnover’ for determining penalties in competition law contraventions.
A three-judge bench ruled upon the internet shutdown in Kashmir in 2019 in the case of Aniruddha Bhasin v Union of India (2020). Ramana J wrote the majority opinion and stated that the right to trade over the internet was a fundamental right under the right to freedom of speech and expression. He also held that the suspension of internet cannot be for an indefinite period.