Know Thy Judge | Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, the 16th Chief Justice of High Court of Jharkhand

Justice Mamidanna Satya Ratna Sri Ramachandra Rao is a distinguished legal luminary who has been leaving his imprint on the Indian legal scene since 1989. While having an illustrious career, Justice Rao has also 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.³

Did you know? Justice Rao achieved the top rank in the entire university in his B.Sc. (Hons) Mathematics programme.⁴

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.⁵

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.⁶

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.⁷

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.⁸

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.⁹

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 2013.¹⁰

On the bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh Justice Rao opted for Telangana as his parent High Court and was later¹¹ 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 19-04-2023¹² and on 26-05-2023, the recommendation was confirmed by the Executive¹³. 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.¹⁴

The Supreme Court Collegium comprising of Dr Justice DY Chandrachud, CJI, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hrishikesh Roy, on 11-07-2024, recommended the transfer of Justice M.S Ramachandra Rao, to Jharkhand High Court as its next Chief Justice after the retirement of Dr Justice B.R Sarangi on 19-07-2024.¹⁵ Justice Rao‘s appointment was confirmed by the Ministry of Law and Justice on 21-9-2024 and he was sworn in as Chief Justice of High Court of Jharkhand on 25-09-2024.¹⁶

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 for Himachal Pradesh

In SMSN Continental (P) Ltd. v. H.P. SEB, 2024 SCC OnLine HP 4250, a petition filed questioning the order dated 12-10-2020, passed by the Ombudsman of Respondent 1-Board and seeking a direction to Respondent 1 to refund 50% of the amount paid by the petitioner, the Division Bench of M.S. Ramachandra Rao, CJ* and Satyen Vaidya, J., stated that Respondents 1 to 3 had not been able to show any statutory rule or regulation framed as on 25-4-2019, i.e., date of application made by the petitioner for a new connection to Respondent 1,which empowered them to make the petitioner, pay the late payment surcharge of the previous owner. The Court stated that since, there was no such provision, Respondents 1-3 could not ask the petitioner, to pay the late payment surcharge dues of the previous owner.

In Sandeep Sharma v. High Court of H.P., 2024 SCC OnLine HP 3048, a petition challenging the appointment of Respondent 4 as Additional District and Sessions Judge, the Division Bench of M.S. Ramachandra Rao, CJ. *, and Satyen Vaidya, J., stated that Rule 5(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2004 (‘2004 Rules’), clearly stated that it required practicing as an Advocate at the Bar of a minimum period of seven years as on the last date fixed for receipt of the applications. There was no requirement that such practice as an Advocate must be continuous as on the date of making application for the said post. Respondent 4 was in active practice, and he possessed cumulatively more than 7 years of active practice and hence, was eligible for the appointment to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge.

“a judicial officer, regardless of his or her previous experience as an Advocate of 7 years, cannot apply and compete for appointment to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge in the direct recruitment quota meant for Advocates, and nothing more.”

In Court on its own motion v. State of H.P., 2024 SCC OnLine HP 2077, a suo moto petition the Division Bench of Ramachandra Rao, CJ., and Satyen Vaidya, J., noted the Action Plan Report indicating some of the proactive and mitigative steps taken by the State, opined that much more was needed to be done. Thus, the Court directed the respondents-State to file a status report regarding the extent to which the directions of the Chief Secretary on forest fire safety and water harvesting, given to all the Deputy Commissioners and Departments in the State were implemented, on the next date of hearing.

In Court on its own motion v. State of H.P., 2024 SCC OnLine HP 1748, a suo moto petition regarding non-compliance of HP Prison Manual, 2021 in the State, the Division Bench of M.S Ramachandra Rao, CJ., and Jyotsna Rewa Dua, J., stated that respondents should file a status report as to why the Kishanpura Jail, Nalagarh had not yet been made operational and when the recruitment of Warders in the Department of Prisons and Correctional Services, Himachal Pradesh would be completed and when they would be posted for duties. The status report should also indicate when the works which were to be done in Kishanpura Jail, Nalagarh would be completed so that the jail could be made fully functional.

In Court on its own motion v. State of H.P., 2024 SCC OnLine HP 909, a suo motu petition regarding lack of improvement in the road condition between Manali and Mandi on NH-21 (Old), the Division Bench of M.S. Ramachandra Rao, CJ., and Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J., opined that though tunnels on the said section were good, there were several stretches where it was difficult for the motorists to drive because of heavy dust on road and poor road conditions. Further, in several places, where the mudslides/landslides had occurred, it had not been removed and roads were very narrow at several points, which required immediate attention of the National Highway Authority of India (‘NHAI’). Thus, the Court directed the NHAI to file a report on the Manali-Mandi section of NH-21 on the next date of hearing, and the steps proposed to be taken to rectify the above aspects should also be indicated in the said status report.

In Nishtha Jaswal v. Mitesh Jorwal, 2024 SCC OnLine HP 59, the Division Bench of Ramachandra Rao, CJ., and Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J., opined that even before the registration of contempt case against the Vice Chancellor of Himachal Pradesh, National Law University (‘HPNLU’), the Single Judge could not have given a finding that she had committed wilful disobedience of this Court’s order and thus, temporarily stayed the order dated 09-01-2024, passed by the Single Judge.

“Prima facie, even before the registration of contempt case against the Vice Chancellor of Himachal Pradesh, National Law University, Single Judge could not have given a finding that she had committed wilful disobedience of the Court’s order.”

In State of H.P. v. Rajinder Fishta, 2023 SCC OnLine HP 789, an appeal filed by the State challenging the judgment and order passed by the Single Judge Bench, wherein the Court directed the State to pay an annual increment to the respondent for the extended period of one-year with all consequential benefits., the Division Bench M.S. Ramachandra Rao*, CJ. and Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, J. dismissed the appeal and upheld the Single Bench decision while imposing cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the State.

“The State as a model employer cannot discriminate among its employees in this manner and give a benefit which is conferred under the applicable rules/instructions to some, and deny the same to others.”

In Yogesh Verma v. State of H.P., 2023 SCC OnLine HP 726, a writ petition filed challenging the guidelines issued by National Bank for Agriculture and Rural development (‘NABARD’) for the selection of statutory auditors for cooperative banks, a division Bench of M.S. Ramachandra Rao CJ. and Ajay Mohan Goel J., dismissed the petition and upheld the guidelines issued by NABARD, as the conditions imposed were reasonably relevant and had rational nexus with the functions and duties attached to the post of auditors.

“Article 243 ZM (1) of the Constitution of India empowers the legislature of a State to make law with respect to maintenance of accounts by the co-operative societies and the auditing of such accounts at least once in each financial year and also empowers that State shall, by law, lay down the minimum qualifications and experience of auditors and auditing firms that shall be eligible for auditing accounts of the co-operative societies.”

While feeling shocked over the fact that there are five of the illegal dumping sites are in the catchment areas, a division bench comprising of M.S. Ramachandra Rao, CJ., and Ajay Mohan Goel, J., in Sanjeevan Singh v. State of H.P., 2023 SCC OnLine HP 766, directed the Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD to identify the responsible officials and initiate appropriate disciplinary against them.

In Fourlane Visthapit & Prabhavit Samiti v. State of H.P., 2023 SCC OnLine HP 745, a writ petition filed against the illegal dumping of muck in the forest area by the contractors of National Highways Authority of India (‘NHAI’), a division bench of M.S. Ramachandra Rao CJ. and Ajay Mohan Goel J. has impleaded Union of India as respondents, seeking response as to what it intends to do to ensure that the officials of NHAI do not permit muck dumping either in the forest areas of the State or water bodies and for removal of the muck already dumped by their contractors.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana

While deciding a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) in State of Punjab v. Ranjit Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine P&H 569, 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, 2023 SCC OnLine P&H 568, 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, 2023 SCC OnLine P&H 557, 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

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., 2021 SCC OnLine TS 3657, 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, 2020 SCC OnLine TS 3431, 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 4 ½ 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 Articles14 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.