The President of India, by the power granted to him under Article 124(2), has appointed Justice Nuthalapati Venkata Ramana as the 48th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India or Chief Justice of India (CJI). Justice Ramana took oath on 24th April, 2021 to serve a fifteen-month long term.
Though the Indian Constitution is silent on the manner of appointment of Chief Justice of India, a Memorandum of Procedure released by the Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, Govt of India, lays down the following regarding the appointment to the office of the CJI;
(1) Appointment should be of the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court who is considered fit to hold the office;
(2) Union Minister of law would seek the recommendation of the the outgoing Chief Justice of India for the appointment of the next;
(3) Whenever there is any doubt about the fitness of the senior-most Judge to hold the office of the Chief Justice of India, consultation with other Judges as envisaged in Article 124 (2) of the Constitution would be made for appointment of the next Chief Justice of India.
(4) After receipt of the recommendation of the Chief Justice of India, the Union Minister of Law, will put up the recommendation to the Prime Minister who will advise the President in the matter of appointment.
(5) The President then administers oath to the appointed Chief Justice of India.
It has been a long established convention wherein the outgoing CJI names his successor and his recommendation is final and the appointment becomes a mere formality. At present, there is no constitutional mandate regarding the appointment of a Judge to the office of CJI, rather it is a tradition wherein the senior-most Judge next in line is appointed as the CJI. As per tradition, it is a clear argument that if a Judge is fit to hold a position in the Supreme Court, he is fit to hold the office of the CJI and primary criteria is to be the senior-most in line. It is worth mentioning at this point that “senior-most” does not mean the oldest in terms of age. Seniority, for this purpose, is defined by the number of years an individual has served as a Judge of the Supreme Court.
In a situation where two judges have served for the exact same time, because they were appointed as SC judges on the same day, other factors are used to determine the seniority of the judges, for example, which judge has more years of experience in the high court and if either of them were nominated from the bar directly. A situation arose ahead of the appointment of Justice Dipak Misra, as both Justice Misra and Justice Chelameswar were sworn in on the same day as judges of the SC on October 10, 2011. Despite being four months younger, Justice Misra was appointed as the CJI in August 2017.
Amid the existing state of affairs, one is compelled to analyze the role of the government in such appointment. For instance, who decides whether the senior-most Judge is fit to hold the office of the CJI? Is the recommendation of the outgoing CJI immutable? And, has there ever been an instance where opinion of other judges was sought by the government? The answers to these questions are important but not at the cost of judicial autonomy, it seems. There have been cases in the past where appointments to the office of CJI were clouded with massive controversies and caused friction between the government and the judiciary.
As far as our judicial history goes, the tradition behind the appointment of CJI has been duly adhered to. The only two controversial exceptions – Justice Ray and Justice Beg – can be traced back to the reign of Late Prime Minister Ms. Indira Gandhi. Justice AN Ray was appointed as CJI in 1973 despite being fourth in terms of seniority after Justices JM Shelat, KL Hegde and AN Grover. The reason was the involvement of these three judges in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case, which had held that Parliament cannot make amendments to the Constitution that would alter its “basic structure”. Whereas, Justice MH Beg was appointed as the CJI in 1977 despite Justice HR Khanna being senior. This was because of Justice Khanna’s minority judgment in the ADM Jabalpur case. Justice Khanna had laid down that he did not agree with the government’s argument that detention of persons during the Emergency cannot be questioned, even if mala fide and without the authority of law.
Now, coming to our current CJI-designate. Justice Ramana’s contribution to the legal system, without question has been remarkable and exemplary. He has previously been the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court and acting Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. He has also served as the President of the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Academy. As Executive Chairman of National Legal Services Authority, Justice Ramana was responsible for making India’s legal aid programme the largest in the world, wherein legal aid is not only provided on the basis of ‘means test’ rather on basis of fixed categories. Justice Ramana is an avid proponent of ‘easy access to justice’. During an interview, he expressed his vision for the Indian Judicial System, in which one of his primary objectives is to improve the judicial infrastructure through a special purpose vehicle called the ‘National Judicial Infrastructure Corporation’, which would act as a nodal agency.
In the imminent future, we expect to witness Justice NV Ramana working towards the improvement of our justice system and playing a vital role in reinstating people’s lost faith in our judiciary. After being alleged by the Andhra Pradesh CM, Mr. Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy of attempting to destabilize the AP government, by influencing hearings and decisions in the High Court, Justice Ramana has huge responsibilities on his shoulders. Though an in-house Supreme Court investigation has found the allegations to be meritless, Justice Ramana has to quickly pull through this extremely rare occurrence wherein a Chief Minister of a state has accused a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court of dereliction of duty, misdemeanour and abuse of power.
Taking all this into account, in a democratic system where transition is dictated by tradition, nothing but reverence for tradition is imperative. Unless and until a serious threat is posed to our democracy and the Constitution of this country, our judiciary, in consonance with our constitutional mandate, deserves to be independent and autonomous institution. The Judiciary also has a simultaneous moral duty to be vigilant and accountable at all times as one of the key pillars our democracy.
To conclude, I would like to quote: “The spirit of the judiciary lies not only in its independence but also in its solemn resolve to protect the rights of the people and uphold the Constitution.”
About the Author:
Dr. Ankit Singh is a young UGC-NET (JRF) qualified academician with an extensive teaching and research experience of six years wherein he has taught a wide range of subjects to both undergraduate and postgraduate students. He has a master’s degree in intellectual property and business laws from National Law Institute University, Bhopal and a Ph.D. in the domain of patent law from Jagran Lakecity University. He has more than twenty research publications to his credit on varying domains of law in the form of books, chapters, articles and research papers. He has presented his research papers in various national and international conferences. His research areas primarily include intellectual property law, business law, international law and environmental law.