Introduction

• Bangalore Venkataramiah Nagarathna is a sitting judge of the Supreme Court of India. Born on 30^th October 1962, in Bengaluru, Karnataka
• She hails from a family deeply rooted in the legal profession. Her father, E.S. Venkataramiah, served as the 19^th Chief Justice of India (CJI).
• Justice B.V. Nagarathna's journey from the bar to the bench was marked by steady progress and a deepening commitment to the principles of justice.
• She is possibly in line to become the first Woman CJI by 2027.

Career

• Justice Nagarathna graduated from Delhi University in B.A (Hons.) and LLB.
• She started practice in Law in 1987, initially in KESVY & Co., Advocates and started independent practice in July 1994.
  • She represented Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA) and High Court Legal Services Committee. She was also appointed as Amicus Curiae in certain cases.
• She was appointed as Additional Judge of Karnataka High Court on 18^th February 2008 and Permanent Judge on 17^th February 2010.
• She contributed a chapter on Courts of Karnataka which is a part of the book "Courts of India" released by the SC.
• She was elevated as Judge of the SC on 31^st August 2021 and her tenure will be till 29th October 2027.

Notable Cases

Concurring Opinions

• Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab (2022):
  • Justice Nagarathna was a part of 5 judges-bench which held that “The conclusion of the trial in a criminal prosecution if it ends in conviction, a judgment is considered to be complete in all respects only when the sentence is imposed on the convict”.
  • It means that a criminal trial does not conclude solely upon the conviction of the accused; rather, it reaches its full conclusion during the sentencing phase.
• Pattali Makkal Katchi v. Mayileruperumal (2022):
  • Justice Nagarathna was a part of 3 judges-bench which admitted the batch of petitions seeking to uphold an Act passed by the Tamil Nadu government in 2021 which provided special reservation in Education Institutions.
  • She was a part of bench which gave interim order of putting a stay upon further appointments based on the Act in conflict, however the final verdict was given by Justice B R Gavai and L Nageshwara Rao.
• Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Ors. (2022):
  • Justice Nagarathna while hearing batch of plea against the remission of 11 convicts charged for several other offences including rape.
  • She questioned the selective application of the policy of remission.
  • She also questioned the counsel that in this the convicts had the privilege of coming out for several hundreds of days as opposed to other convicts who do not have such privilege.
• Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) (2023):
  • Justice Nagarathna authored the judgment where a 5 judges-bench unanimously held that the court may convict a person on circumstantial evidence upon the allegation of taking bribes and gratifications under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).
  • While concluding the judgment she quoted that “Complainants as well as the prosecution make sincere efforts to ensure that the corrupt public servants are brought to book and convicted so that the administration and governance becomes unpolluted and free from corruption”.
• Kusumben Patel Varun Punia v. The State of Uttarakhand and Ors (2023):
  • As part of a division bench, Justice Nagarathna held in this case that not every case of improper investigation can be transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)”.

Dissenting Opinions

• Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023):
  • Justice Nagarathna was a part of 5 judges' bench which held that “A mere statement made by a Minister, inconsistent with the rights of a citizen under Part III of the Constitution, may not constitute a violation of the constitutional rights and become actionable as Constitutional tort”.
    • The bench also mentioned that if such a statement leads to any action or failure to act by officials, causing harm or loss to an individual, it could potentially be subject to legal action as a constitutional tort.
  • She gave a dissenting opinion by holding a view that a well-established legal framework is essential for delineating the actions or failures to act that could be considered constitutional torts, as well as for establishing how such issues would be addressed or resolved through prior judicial rulings.
    • She said “Particularly, it is not prudent to treat all cases where a statement made by a public functionary resulting in harm or loss to a person/citizen, as a constitutional tort”.
• Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India (2023):
  • A five judges bench upheld the decision of demonetization in 2016 with a 4:1 majority.
  • Justice Nagarathna gave a dissenting opinion in the matter by stating that the Central Government would have undertaken a legislative process for implementing demonetization and not by simply issuing a gazette notification.

Important Quotes

• Justice Nagarathna while guiding the coming lawyers of the nation quoted that “Do not risk valuing rhetoric over reason, party over principle and ideology over evidence”.
• While addressing the importance of constitutional values, she said “Constitutional culture cannot be laid down over night”.
• While recognizing the prominence of strengthening the rule of law for guarding the equal stand and rights of minorities in the nation she said, “If we want to become a superpower, the first thing we need is the rule of law”.