Justice Mamidanna Satya Ratna Sri Ramachandra Rao is a distinguished legal luminary who has left an indelible mark on the Indian judiciary. While having an illustrious career, Justice Rao has emerged as a paragon of judicial excellence due to his profound knowledge of the law and unwavering commitment to justice by upholding the rule of law and ensuring equal access to justice for all.
Early Life and Education
Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao was born on 07-08-1966 in Hyderabad. He is a third-generation Judge in his family. His father Justice M. Jagannadha Rao was a former Judge of the Supreme Court of India (1997-2000) and a former Chairman of Law Commission of India. His grandfather, M.S. Ramachandra Rao was also a Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh from 1960-61,1 and so was his grandfather’s brother, Justice M. Krishna Rao, who was a Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh from 1966-1973.2
Justice Rao completed his secondary education at St. Paul’s High School in Hyderabad and Intermediate course at Little Flower College. He obtained a B.Sc. (Hons) degree in Mathematics from Bhavans New Science College, Osmania University.
➢ Did you know? Justice Rao achieved the top rank in the entire university in his B.Sc. (Hons) Mathematics program.3
Justice Rao graduated from University College of Law, Osmania University, Hyderabad, with a Bachelor of Law (LLB) degree in 1989 and was enrolled as an Advocate on 07-09-1989.
➢ Did you know? For his outstanding performance and highest marks in the final year of LL.B., Justice Rao was honored with the prestigious CVSS Acharyulu Gold Medal by Osmania University.4
Justice Rao completed his LL.M. degree from the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom in 1991. He received the prestigious Pegasus Scholarship from the Pegasus Scholarship Trust, based in Inner Temple, London, headed by Lord Goff of Chieveley, a Judicial Member of the House of Lords. As part of this scholarship, he underwent training at Brick Court Chambers in Middle Temple, London, as well as at Clifford Chance, a multinational solicitors’ firm based in London.5
➢ Did you know? Justice Rao was awarded the Cambridge Commonwealth Scholarship and the Bank of Credit and Commerce International Scholarship, which supported his studies during the LL.M. program at Cambridge University.6
Career as an Advocate
Justice Rao began his legal practice at the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the areas of Civil Law, Arbitration, Company Law, Administrative and Constitutional Law, Labour and Service law. He was the counsel for Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, State Bank of India, State Bank of Hyderabad, District Cooperative Central Bank, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., A.P. State Financial Corporation, the Institute of Public Enterprise and the Securities and Exchange Board of India and several companies and financial institutions.7
Justice Rao was also appointed by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh as a Special Government Pleader in the High Court to deal with Urban Land Ceiling Matters.8
From an Advocate to Judge
In recognition of his remarkable legal acumen and his unwavering dedication to justice, Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao was elevated as Addl. Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 29-06-2012 and later appointed as Permanent Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in 2013.9
On the bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh Justice Rao opted for Telangana as his parent High Court and was later10 appointed Acting Chief Justice of High Court of the State of Telangana on 31-08-2021 after Chief Justice Hima Kohli relinquished charge after her elevation to the Supreme Court. Justice Rao was then transferred to High Court of Punjab and Haryana to assume charge as the Judge of High of Punjab and Haryana on 12-10-2021.
In order to provide representation to the State of Telangana among Chief Justices of the High Courts, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended the appointment of Justice Ramachandra Rao in its Resolution dated 19-04-202311 and on 26-05-2023, the recommendation was confirmed by the Executive12. On 30-05-2023, Justice Rao was sworn in as the Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh and was administered the oath by Governor of Himachal Pradesh, Shiv Pratap Shukla at Raj Bhawan.13
Notable Judgements by Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao
Throughout his tenure on the bench, Justice Rao has presided over several landmark cases, leaving an indelible impact on the Indian legal landscape. He has consistently delivered judgments that have upheld the rights of individuals, protected the interests of the marginalized, and promoted social justice. Some of his notable Judgments are as follows:
High Court of Punjab and Haryana While deciding a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) in State of Punjab v. Ranjit Singh,14 a Division bench comprising of M.S. Ramachandra Rao* and Sukhvinder Kaur, JJ., held that grant of higher pay scale only on the basis of completion of some years of service and not seniority is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
In Haryana Staff Selection Commission v. Subhash Chand,15 a Division bench comprising of M.S. Ramachandra Rao* and Sukhvinder Kaur, JJ., held that employment cannot be denied merely on the ground of delay in production of Economically Backward Person in General Caste (EBPGC) Certificate.
In Talim Khan v. Intelligence Officer,16 a Division bench comprising of M.S. Ramachandra Rao* and Sukhvinder Kaur, JJ., relaxed the norm on ‘Mandatory Custody’ of 6 years for suspension of sentence in NDPS cases as laid down in Daler Singh v. State of Punjab, 2006 SCC OnLine P&H 1591, and held that the same was liable to relaxed by six months, while maintaining the minimum custody of 15 months after conviction.
“…the norm of undergoing minimum mandatory period of custody of 6 years for consideration of grant of relief of suspension of sentence in cases where there is conscious possession of commercial quantity of contraband laid down in the decision of Daler Singh is liable to slightly relaxed by 6 months while maintaining the minimum custody of 15 months after conviction.”
In Sukhjeet Kaur v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine P&H 33, a writ petition challenging rejection of family pension to petitioner by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on the ground of remarriage, the bench of M.S. Ramachandra Rao* and Sukhvinder Kaur, JJ., directed the restoration of pension and held that Government staffer’s widow to get family pension even if she weds husband’s brother.
While deciding an appeal in Sandeep Tomar v. State of Punjab, 2022 SCC OnLine P&H 3720, filed by the husband who was convicted under Ss. 304-B read with 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 for murder of his wife, the division bench of M.S. Ramachandra Rao,* and Sukhvinder Kaur, JJ., upheld the order of Additional Sessions Judge to release the stridhan of deceased wife to her father.
In Amrik Singh v. DCB Bank Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine P&H 3518, the petitioner approached the High Court against rejection of their proposal for one-time settlement, when it was stated that a substantial amount was already deposited, and the remaining amount was being promised to be deposited within a short time of further 3 to 4 months. The Court directed the bank to act upon the OTS proposal of the petitioner.
In Noor Paul v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine P&H 3408, a division bench comprising of M.S. Ramachandra Rao,* and H.S. Madaan, JJ., held that not supplying a copy of a Look Out Circular (LOC) to the concerned person at the airport is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and awarded Rs 1 Lakh compensation to a woman for losing foreign trip.
In Arvindra Electronics (P) Ltd. v. SBI, 2022 SCC OnLine P&H 3144, the petition preferred a writ petition seeking an extension of the payment period under the OTS and a division bench comprising of M.S. Ramachandra Rao,* and H.S. Madaan, JJ., allowed the petitioner extension of time for a reasonable time and compensate the Bank by payment of interest for the same.
High Court for the State of Telangana and Hyderabad High Court
While answering the question, if one of spouses in a marital relationship is found to be guilty of infidelity, would it amount to causing mental cruelty to the other spouse in Laxmi Meenakshi v. Chetty Mahadevappa, 2021 SCC OnLine TS 469, a Division Bench comprising of M.S. Ramachandra Rao* and T. Vinod Kumar, JJ., shed light on the aspects of mental cruelty and desertion.
“Fidelity in marital relationship is very important and if one of the spouses is guilty of infidelity, it would certainly amount to causing mental cruelty to the other spouse.”
While adjudicating a matter related to the infamous tussle between the sibling States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana over the assets of Vijaya Dairy in Hyderabad, a Division Bench comprising of M.S. Ramachandra Rao* and T. Vinod Kumar, JJ., in A.P. State Dairy Development Coop. Federation Ltd. v. Telangana State Dairy Development Coop. Federation Ltd.,17 set aside the government order authorising the transfer of ownership of a milk product factory at Lalapet, other dairy buildings, and the Somajiguda guest house, which belong to the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited (APDDCF), to the Telangana State Dairy Development Cooperative Federation (TSDDCF). The Court held that the administrative office, assets and liabilities of erstwhile APDDCF should be shared between the two federations in the ratio 58.32:41.68, as per proviso to S. 53(1)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014.
While deciding a matter related to ‘World’s largest’ Lift Irrigation Project – Kaleswaram Lift Irrigation Project, a Division Bench comprising of M.S. Ramachandra Rao* and K. Lakshman, JJ., in Merugu Narsaiah v. State of Telangana, 2020 SCC OnLine TS 536, allowed the petitions which were filed in regard with the issues relating to (a) payment of lawful compensation under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 to the petitioners for depriving them of their agricultural lands and structures thereon and (b) also for compensation in lieu of Rehabilitation and Resettlement under S. 31-A introduced in the Act by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Telangana Amendment) Act, 2016.
In a landmark judgment of Ganta Jai Kumar v. State of Telangana, 2020 SCC OnLine TS 482, a Division bench comprising of M.S. Ramachandra Rao* and K. Lakshman, JJ., came heavily upon the government regarding its order mandating the citizens from getting COVID tested or treated in assigned government hospitals only and which prevented them from going to private hospitals even if they were ICMR approved and held that, medical emergency cannot be used as an excuse to trample on the fundamental rights of citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
“…limiting the testing centers arbitrarily jeopardizes the health of such serious non COVID patients as well and exponentially increases the risks of spread of the disease in COVID positive cases that remain undetected for prolonged periods. It is imperative to reduce the burden on the health care system and ensure that COVID-19 cases get detected and treated at a faster rate.”
In deciding a petition filed by a girl student against the action of Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences, Warangal and the State government enabling collection of annual tuition fee for five academic years, a Division bench comprising of M.S. Ramachandra Rao* and K. Lakshman, JJ., in Dundigalla Padmateja v. State of Telangana,18 held that the private colleges could not charge 5 years’ fee as the standard duration of MBBS course was 4.5 years and directed the State private medical and dental colleges to collect tuition fee only for the duration of the course.
“… to collect tuition fee from students admitted in the private medical colleges/members for five (5) years though the period of study of the MBBS course as per Medical Council of India “Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997” is only for 4½ years is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.”
In Agarwal Foundries (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine TS 1446, a Division bench comprising of M.S. Ramachandra Rao* and T. Amarnath Goud, JJ., held that GST officials cannot use physical violence while conducting interrogation n furtherance of inquiry proceedings. In the light of special facts and circumstances of the instant matter, the Court directed that any interrogation of petitioners or their employees shall be between 10:30 a.m. and 05:00 p.m. on weekdays in the visible range of an Advocate appointed by them, who shall not be in hearing range.
While giving green signal for the release of Ram Gopal Varma’s Telugu film ‘Murder’ based on the real-life incident, wherein a Dalit youth was assassinated in 2018 in broad daylight by killers, hired by his father in law, who belonged to an upper caste, in an alleged hate crime, a Division bench comprising of M.S. Ramachandra Rao* and T. Amarnath Goud, JJ., in Ramgopal Varma v. Perumalla Amrutha, 2020 SCC OnLine TS 3018, held that there was no violation of ‘Right to Privacy’ when matter already in public domain.
“…once the matter becomes a matter of public record, the right to privacy is no longer subsisting and it becomes a legitimate subject for comment for press and media among others. There are of course some exceptions to this exception, with which were not concerned.”
In a significant judgment of Gold Stone Exports (P) Ltd. v. M.S. Murthy, 2019 SCC OnLine TS 2137, a Division bench comprising of M.S. Ramachandra Rao* and K. Lakshman, JJ., while dismissing the plea of Goldstone Exports (P) Ltd. over land admeasuring around 98.10 acres in survey number 172 of Hydernagar village and held that the preliminary decree as regards the lands in Hydernagar village was obtained by committing fraud both on the court as well as other occupants land in the village and therefore is void ab initio.
While setting aside the decision of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams (TTD) fixing the retirement age of hereditary archakas and mirasis at 65 years, M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.*, in A.B. Seshadri v. State of A.P., 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 422, held that TTD had no jurisdiction to pass such resolutions by comparing hereditary archakas and mirasis with other employees and the resolution passed by the TTB is illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 25 of the Constitution of India. The Court directed the TTD to restore the services of two Sambhavana Archakas and allow them to discharge their duties as such as long as they are physically fit.
In Y. Venkata Ramana v. Yellaboyani Venkatamma, 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 53, M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.*, reiterated that maximum period of 90 days (about 3 months) to file a written statement as prescribed under CPC is to be extended only in exceptional cases.
* Judge who has penned the judgment.
1. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, High Court for the State of Telangana.
2. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, High Court for the State of Telangana.
3. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, High Court for the State of Telangana.
4. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, High Court for the State of Telangana.
5. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, High Court for the State of Telangana.
6. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, High Court for the State of Telangana.
7. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, High Court for the State of Telangana.
8. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, High Court for the State of Telangana.
9. Hon’ble Chief Justice, High Court of Himachal Pradesh.
10. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (sci.gov.in)
11. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (sci.gov.in)
12. 2023052610.pdf (s3waas.gov.in)
13. Justice MS Ramachandra Rao sworn in as 28th chief justice of Himachal HC, Hindustan Times.
14. LPA-1423-2018 with CM-3855-LPA-2018, order dated 15-03-2023.
15. LPA-1199-2019, order dated 24-03-2023.
16. CRM-44634-2021 in CRA-D-932-2019, order dated 15-03-2023.
17. Writ Petition No. 22680 of 2016, order dated 09-03-2021.
18. Writ Petition No. 23908 of 2018, order dated 08-01-2020.
