S.V. Bhatti

Early Life and Education 

Justice Sarasa Venkatanarayana Bhatti was born on 6 May 1962. He completed his law degree from the Jagadguru Renukacharya College, Bangalore in 1989. 

Career as an Advocate 

Justice Bhatti enrolled in the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh in January 1987. He started practising in the Trial Court at Madanapalle, Andhra Pradesh, and later moved to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. He served as the Special Government Pleader in the office of Advocate General between 2000 and 2003. He had a career in advocacy for 26 years before being elevated as a Judge. 

Career as a Judge 

On 12 April 2013, Justice Bhatti was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. In June 2014, he was appointed as a permanent judge of the High Court at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. In January 2019, he was appointed as a judge of the newly formed Andhra Pradesh High Court.  

In March 2019, Justice Bhatti was transferred to the High Court of Kerala where he became a Chief Justice after four years on 1 June 2023. 

On 5 July 2023, the Collegium recommended the appointment of Justice Bhatti to the Supreme Court. The Collegium said that his appointment would bring representation from the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the Supreme Court. The Department of Justice notified his appointment on 12 July 2023. Justice Bhatti took oath as a Supreme Court Judge on 14 July 2023.

According to Figure 1, Justice Bhatti has authored 65 judgments and has been a part of 91 benches so far. 

According to Figure 2, Justice Bhatti has authored the most judgments in property matters (18%). This is followed by rulings on criminal matters (17%), civil matters (14%), company matters (6%), and family matters (6%). 

Notable Judgments

In M. G. Devasahayam v Union of India (2023), a Division Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and S.V. Bhatti disposed of a PIL challenging the constitutionality of Rule 18 of the Registration of Electors Rule, 1960. Petitioners had argued that Rule 18 allows the deletion of names from electoral rolls without any opportunity of being heard. The Bench reiterated the contours and guidelines of Rule 18 while noting that if there are specific lapses, it would be open to the parties to approach the State Election Commission or the concerned Election Officer. 

In Dr Kavita Yadav v The Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department and Ors (2023), Justice Bhatti, writing on behalf of a three-judge bench, held that maternity benefits must be granted even if the period of benefit overshoots the tenure of contractual employment. Reading the provisions of Section 12(2)(a) of the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961, the Bench held that on independent analysis of the provision, there is nothing to suggest that maternity benefits do not go beyond the duration of the employment of the applicant. 

In March 2025, the division bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Bhatti set aside the one-year moratorium imposed by the Patna High Court for applying for bail in MD Gulzar v. State of Bihar (2025). The Bench struck down the moratorium, noting that the High Court lacked the authority to impose it. It held that the petitioner had the liberty to file fresh bail applications, as the moratorium does not prevent this action.