{"id":383143,"date":"2026-05-03T10:00:30","date_gmt":"2026-05-03T04:30:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=383143"},"modified":"2026-05-02T17:49:52","modified_gmt":"2026-05-02T12:19:52","slug":"justice-ps-narasimha-career-life-judgments-supreme-court-profile","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/03\/justice-ps-narasimha-career-life-judgments-supreme-court-profile\/","title":{"rendered":"Know Thy Judge | From Courtroom to Coram: Exploring Justice P.S. Narasimha\u2019s journey to the Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

“The power of judicial review in matters concerning implementation of policy objectives should transcend the standard power of judicial review to issue writs to perform statutory duty”.<\/p>\n

– Justice P.S. Narasimha1<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, whose legal journey began in the 1980s, has the distinction of being one of the few advocates who were elevated directly from the Bar to the position of Supreme Court judgeship. His tenure as a lawyer boasts of several landmark cases like “Ayodhya Ramjanmabhoomi case<\/span><\/a>” for instance; and it is something that he has carried well into into his judicial tenure. In his time as a Judge, Justice P.S. Narasimha has shown immense expertise in handling variety of matters ranging from constitutional, environmental to arbitration.<\/p>\n

From appearing before the Judges in a courtroom to himself becoming part of the Coram, Justice Narasimha’s career graph is outstanding to say the least. Hence, we have curated some these very notable moments of Justice Narasimha’s stellar career trajectory.<\/p>\n

The Courtroom: Early Life and Career<\/p>\n

Justice P.S. Narasimha was born on 3 May 1963 to Justice Kodanda Ramayya, who was also a Judge and an eminent legal writer. Already familiar with law and its nuances, Justice Narasimha passed his LL. B in 1988 and started practicing in Andhra Pradesh High Court. He specialised in laws related to Telecom, Competition, Electricity, and other Regulatory Jurisdictions2<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Thereafter he moved to New Delhi to practice at the Supreme Court of India and in 2008, he was designated as a Senior Advocate3<\/sup><\/a>. In May 2014, Justice Narasimha was appointed as the Additional Solicitor General and held this position till 15 December 20184<\/sup><\/a>, having resigned from the post citing personal reasons5<\/sup><\/a>. He was also a member of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA).6<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Prominent Cases as a Counsel, Amicus Curiae and Mediator7<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

During his tenure as a Senior Advocate, Justice Narasimha played a key role in many crucial cases; most notable among them being the BCCI matters and Ayodhya Land Dispute<\/a>. In the BCCI matters<\/span>, Justice Narasimha was not only an amicus curiae<\/span> (friend of the court), later on, he was also appointed as a mediator<\/a> in all the matters relating to BCCI pending before the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

In M. Siddiq (Ram Janmabhumi Temple-5 J.) v. Suresh Das<\/span>, (2020) 1 SCC 1<\/a><\/span> , also known as the Ayodhya Land Dispute; Justice Narasimha was one of the many prominent counsels who appeared in the matter. Narasimha’s arguments in the matter centered around the belief of Hindus that the site in question is the birthplace of Lord Ram – “The test, which has to be applied for marshalling the evidence is the standard of preponderance of probability… proof of fact depends upon the belief or probability of the fact looking to the circumstances of the particular case<\/span>”.<\/p>\n

Justice Narasimha assisted the Supreme Court as a Law Officer in several landmark cases, including Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India<\/span>, (2016) 5 SCC 1<\/a>, (NJAC case) before the Constitution Bench.<\/p>\n

He was the amicus curiae<\/span> for the Forest Bench and other cases concerning Judicial Appointments, Fast Track courts, and Tribal laws.<\/p>\n

Justice Narasimha also represented the Indian side at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in the Italian Marines Case<\/span>8<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Justice Narasimha represented India before the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), Hague in Investment Treaty Arbitration.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court appointed Justice Narasimha as a Mediator in the BCCI case<\/a> to mediate between the members and the Board for holding elections and the constitution of an elected body.<\/p>\n

*Did You Know?<\/span> As a Law Officer, Justice Narasimha was instrumental in constituting and being part of the High-powered Committee suggesting sweeping changes to the Arbitration Act and proposing a mechanism for Institutional Arbitration. He is closely associated with the making of the law on Mediation<\/span>.<\/p>\n

To the Coram: Justice P.S. Narasimha as Judge of the Supreme Court<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court Collegium issued a Statement whereby the elevation of P.S. Narasimha as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India was recommended<\/a>. Based on the recommendation, the President of India then appointed<\/a> him and 8 others as Judges of the Supreme Court in 2021.<\/p>\n

*Did You Know?<\/span> Justice P.S. Narasimha is the 9th<\/span> lawyer to be directly elevated as Supreme Court Judge9<\/sup><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Notable decisions by Justice P.S. Narasimha<\/p>\n

*Did You Know?<\/span> Justice P.S. Narasimha is in line to become the 56th Chief Justice of India, if the convention of seniority is followed.10<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Discharge of Governor & President’s functions under Arts 200\/201<\/p>\n

While considering Governor and President: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills, In re<\/span>, (2026) 1 SCC 1<\/a><\/span>, relating to interpretation of powers of the Governor under Articles 200<\/a> and 201<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>; the Constitution Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJI, Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ., opined that the discharge of the Governor’s function under Article 200, is not justiciable. The Court cannot enter into a merits review of the decision taken. However, in glaring circumstances of inaction that is prolonged, unexplained, and indefinite, the Court can issue a limited mandamus for the Governor to discharge his function under Article 200 within a reasonable time period, without making any observations on the merits of the exercise of his discretion. Read more<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Creamy layer status of OBC candidates can’t be decided on parental salary alone<\/p>\n

In Union of India<\/span> v. Rohith Nathan<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 352<\/a><\/span>, arising out of separate orders passed by the Madras High Court, Delhi High Court, and Kerala High Court involving identical question of law regarding determination of creamy layer status for Other Backward Class (OBC) candidates in the Civil Services Examination based on income of parents employed in Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs), banks, or private organisations when such income was excluded from determination in the case of Government servants, the Division Bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and R. Mahadevan,* J., upheld the impugned judgments and affirmed the directions issued by the High Courts for reconsideration of the candidates’ claims under the Office Memorandum dated 08 September 1993. Read more<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Mere use of abusive words not “obscenity”<\/p>\n

In Sivakumar<\/span> v. State<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 529<\/span>, arising out of a fatal incident triggered by a boundary dispute between close relatives, a Division Bench of Manoj Misra8 and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ., partly allowed the appeals and examined the scope of offences under Sections 294(b), 304 Part II, and the applicability of Section 34 IPC. The Court held that mere use of abusive language during a heated altercation does not constitute “obscenity” under Section 294(b) IPC and set aside the conviction on that count. Read more<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Did Kahaani 2 Really Copy ‘Sabak’?<\/p>\n

While deliberating over Sujoy Ghosh<\/span> v. State of Jharkhand<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 454<\/span>, filed by director and screenwriter Sujoy Ghosh (appellant) revolving around his alleged wrongful copying and use of complainant’s script titled “Sabak” to produce the film “Kahaani 2” which led to institution of proceedings against him; the Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe*, JJ., allowed the appeal finding that the appellant’s work had preceded the complainant’s script hence the question of copyright infringement does not arise as the complainant’s script was not even in existence when the appellant registered his screenplay for “Kahaani 2”. Read more<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

AI-made fake precedents surface in trial court order<\/p>\n

In Gummadi Usha Rani<\/span> v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 341,<\/span> raising an important issue concerning the integrity of the judicial decision-making process in the era of Artificial Intelligence (AI), a Division Bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ., took cognizance of the matter and issued notice to the Attorney General for India, the Solicitor General of India, and the Bar Council of India in order to examine the systemic implications of reliance on AI-generated non-existing, fake or synthetic alleged precedents. The instant dispute originated from a civil suit filed by the respondents seeking an injunction in respect of certain property. During the pendency of the suit, the trial court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to note the physical features of the property. After the Commissioner submitted the report, the petitioners (defendants in suit) raised objections to the report. Read more<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Forged Arbitration Agreement Not Arbitrable<\/p>\n

In a significant ruling on forged arbitration agreements, the Supreme Court in Rajia Begum<\/span> v. Barnali Mukherjee<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 135,<\/span> held that a dispute cannot be referred to arbitration when the very document containing the arbitration clause is alleged to be fabricated. The Court held that where the arbitration clause is embedded in a document alleged to be forged, the controversy “strikes at the very root of arbitral jurisdiction” and falls squarely within the category of non-arbitrable disputes.<\/p>\n

The present case revolved around the conflict between arbitral jurisdiction and allegations of forgery of the very document containing the arbitration clause. The appeals arose from inconsistent orders of the High Court, which on the same factual matrix declined appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (A&C Act), yet in separate proceedings directed reference to arbitration under Section 8; the Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ., set aside the High Court’s order, dated 24 September 2021 and held that High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>, was not justified in reappreciating evidence and dislodging concurrent findings led to declining reference to arbitration on the ground of serious fraud and non-production of the original agreement. The Court, however, affirmed the High Court’s order dated 11 March 2021 refusing appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11. Read more<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Applicability of prohibited claim clauses to Arbitral Tribunal<\/p>\n

In State of Jharkhand<\/span> v. Indian Builders<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2717<\/span>, dealing with applicability of prohibitory clauses in arbitration, the bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ., has found that the law laid down in Bharat Drilling & Foundation Treatment Pvt. Ltd<\/span>. v. State of Jharkhand<\/span> (2009) 16 SCC 705 requires reconsideration as is not in tune with the principles laid down by the Court in the recent decisions of Cox and Kings Ltd.<\/span> v. SAP India Private Ltd.<\/span>, (2024) 4 SCC 1 and Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements Under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Stamp Act, 1899, In re<\/span>, (2024) 6 SCC 1 and has hence, referred the matter to a larger bench. Read more<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Bihar Rule mandating mutation proof for property registration<\/p>\n

The present appeal assailed the judgment passed by Patna High Court (‘the High Court’), wherein the appellant’s petition challenging the vires of Rules 19(xvii) and 19(xviii) of Bihar Registration Rules, 2008 (‘Bihar Registration Rules’), mandating mutation proof for property registration, was dismissed. The Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., in Samiullah<\/span> v. State of Bihar<\/span>, (2026) 1 SCC 475<\/span> stated that, considering the nascent stage at which the empirical data is translated as mutation into the relevant records, restraining registration till the jamabandi is effected would be illegal, as it has a direct impact on the right and freedom to purchase and sell property. Thus, the Court held that the prescription of mentioning and production of jamabandi allotment or holding allotment as a pre-condition for registration of a legally presented document under impugned sub-rules is arbitrary and illegal and as such, liable to be set aside.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the Court set aside the order passed by the High Court and quashed the Notification introducing the impugned sub-rules. Further the Court highlighted deficiencies in the land registration system and requested the Law Commission to examine this issue in detail, after consulting the Union, the States, as well as experts in the field of information and technology, and prepare a report on the said issue. Read more<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Draft Constitution of All India Football Federation<\/p>\n

While considering A<\/span><\/span>ll India Football Federation<\/span> v. Rahul Mehra<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2020<\/span>, concerning Constitution of the All India Football Federation (AIFF), the Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., approved the provisions of the Draft Constitution and directed the AIFF administration to call for a special general body meeting and adopt the draft Constitution with the modifications made in the judgment. This shall be done at the earliest, preferably within 4 weeks. “We are of the firm opinion that the Constitution, once adopted in terms of Article 84, will mark a new beginning for Indian football and take the sport to greater heights<\/span>.” Read more<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Regulatory failure in power sector<\/p>\n

In BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1637<\/span>, three distribution companies supplying electricity to consumers in the National Capital Territory of Delhi, namely, BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., BSES Yamuna Power Ltd., and Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited challenged the manner in which the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission had determined the tariff for the retail supply of electricity over the years, which had led to the creation and continuation of a “regulatory asset.”, the division bench of P.S. Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., held that:<\/p>\n