[2] His decisions were credited with the forging of powerful new judicial tools such as continuing mandamus,[3] and the expanded protection of fundamental rights as in the Vishaka Judgement.

Verma began his legal career in 1955, and enrolled as an advocate in the Madhya Pradesh High Court in August 1959.

[15] Justice Verma dissented saying that Parliament had not intended a member of the higher judiciary to be designated a 'public servant' for the purposes of the Prevention of Corruption Act as amended.

"[15] The majority position would also prove problematic to the principles of independence of the judiciary and the constitutional scheme of the hierarchy of the courts.

Justice Verma stated that compensation is an acknowledged constitutional remedy for enforcement and protection of fundamental rights.

The award of monetary compensation is a justifiable remedy when it is the only practical method of redress available for contraventions of fundamental rights by the state or its servants in purported exercise of its powers.

[18] This was on the basis that the opinion of the Chief Justice of India is formed collectively after taking into account the views of his senior colleagues who are required to be consulted by him.

[18] This case related to a presidential proclamation issued under Section 356 (1) of the Emergency Provisions of Constitution of India dissolving the Karnataka Legislative Assembly.

It is difficult to evolve judicially manageable norms on the basis of which to scrutinise decisions which are often highly subjective and based on a wide array of socio-political and economic factors.

Justice Verma stated that only cases which permit application of totally objective standards for deciding whether the constitutional machinery has failed are amenable to judicial review and the remaining cases where there is any significant area of subjective satisfaction are not justiciable because of a lack of judicially manageable standards for resolving the controversy.

The concept of secularism is one facet of the right to equality woven as the central golden thread in the fabric depicting the pattern of the scheme in the Constitution.In this case Justice Verma upheld the principles of natural justice and judicial protections of freedom of association, freedom of expression under the Indian Constitution in the face of strong political pressure.

The court headed by Justice set aside the order of the tribunal, which had endorsed the government notification, and lifted the ban on the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind.

[23] In this way, Justice Verma managed to deliver a judgment in favor of religious minorities and in opposition to the government, even though the facts were in favour of the government, by taking recourse to technical grounds and without making any subjective assessment of the charge of sedition, which may have required him to deliver exactly the converse judgment.

[25] The issue related to three speeches given by Bal Thakeray in the election campaign for Dr. Prabhoo which the High Court held had used intemperate language and were incendiary in nature.

The Supreme Court, while revisiting the two-decade-old Hindutva judgement, has said that nobody should be allowed to misuse religion for electoral gains and has termed it as a 'corrupt practice'.

[27] However, Supreme Court declined a plea to check the “devastating consequences” of its 1995 judgment defining Hindutva as a "way of life" and nothing to do with "narrow fundamentalist Hindu religious bigotry".

The Supreme Court laid down guidelines to deal with the menace of sexual harassment at the workplace through an approach based on equal access, prevention, and empowerment.

[30] Justice Verma held that each incident of sexual harassment constitutes a violation of the fundamental rights of 'gender equality', 'right to life and liberty' and the right to practice any profession or to carry out any occupation, trade or business under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India which depends on a safe working environment.

The Supreme Court went on to state that: In order that the people may feel assured that there is an effective check against misuse or abuse of powers by the members of the armed forces it is necessary that a complaint containing an allegation about misuse or abuse of the powers conferred under the Central Act should be thoroughly inquired into and, it is found that there is substance in the allegation, the victim should be suitably compensated by the State and the requisite sanction under Section 6 of the Central Act should be granted for institution of prosecution and/or a civil suit or other proceedings against the person/persons responsible for such violation.

"[31]This case related to the protection and preservation of the environment free from pollution and maintenance of the ecological balance emphasising the principle of sustainable development.

The court relied on the principle of trust as opposed to ownership of natural resources and sought to balance the need for development with preservation of the environment.

The goal was to create a resolution which would bind the judiciary for the purposes of independence, integrity, accountability, honesty and transparency.

The Resolution was preceded by a draft statement circulated to all the High Courts of the country and suitably redrafted in the light of the suggestions which were received.

Justice Verma served as the Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) from 4 November 1999 to 17 January 2003.

[38] On 1 April 2002 Justice Verma recommended a CBI probe into the following five cases after taking the view that investigations were being hampered by extraneous considerations and people: Godhra, Gulbarg Society, Naroda Patiya, Best Bakery, and Sardarpura in Mehsana.

But the pursuit of these high objectives must be based on justice and the upholding of the values of the Constitution of the Republic and the laws of the land.

According to Verma:These issues seriously impinge on the provisions of the Constitution that guarantee equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India, and the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth...Many of the largest rescue camps, including Shah-e-Alam in Ahmedabad, did not receive visits at a high political or administrative level till I visited them.

In the aftermath of the 2012 gang rape in Delhi, Justice Verma was appointed chairperson of a three-member commission tasked with reforming and invigorating anti-rape law.

He was assisted by: Talha Abdul Rahman, Prof. Mrinal Satish, Shwetasree Majumdar, Saumya Saxena, Preetika Mathur, Siddharth Peter de Souza, Anubha Kumar, Apoorv Kurup, Devansh Mohta, Jigar Patel, Nikhil Mehra, Nishit Agrawal, Shyam Nandan, Nithyaesh Natraj and Salman Hashmi.

This eventually led to the passing of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, which was criticised as it did not adequately consider the Committee's work and recommendations.