Koka Subba Rao (15 July 1902 –6 May 1976) was the ninth Chief Justice of India (1966–1967). He also served as the Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. [1] [2]
He was born into a Velama family at Rajamahendravaram on the banks of Godavari River in present day Andhra Pradesh.[ citation needed ] His father,a lawyer,died early.[ citation needed ] Rao graduated from the Government Arts College,Rajamundry and studied law at Madras Law College.[ citation needed ] He was a good sportsman.[ citation needed ]
He joined the office of his father-in-law,P. Venkata Raman Rao Naidu,who was junior of the Andhra Kesari Prakasam Pantulu. He was recruited as District Munsif and worked for a few months in Bapatla,Guntur district.
After Venkata Raman Rao was elevated as Judge of Madras High Court,Subbarao partnered with gifted brother-in-law P. V. Rajamannar,who later became Advocate-General and Chief Justice of Madras High Court. They commanded the cream of legal work from all parts of composite Madras state. He was elevated to the Bench in 1948.
After the separation of Andhra,Rajaji wanted to send Govinda Menon,a senior judge to head the Andhra Pradesh High Court to be established in Guntur in 1954. But Prakasam insisted on having Subbarao as the Special Officer to facilitate the formation of High Court. Automatically he became the Chief Justice.
When Sri Venkateswara University was established at Tirupati in 1954,Subbarao became its first Chancellor and remained in the position till the University Act was amended restoring the Chancellorship to the Governor.
After tenures as a judge at Madras High Court and a Chief Justice at Andhra Pradesh High Court,he was appointed a Supreme Court judge on 31 January 1958. He was appointed Chief Justice of India on 30 June 1966. His most famous judgment was for the landmark Golaknath v. State of Punjab case where he ruled that Fundamental Rights could not be amended. [3]
Subba Rao retired on 11 April 1967 to contest the fourth presidential elections as the consensus candidate of opposition parties. [4]
The Judgment of SUBBA RAO,C.J.,SHAH,SIKRI,SHELAT and VAIDIALINGAM,JJ. was delivered by SUBBA RAO,C.I. According to this Judgment-(i) the power to amend the Constitution is not to be found in Art. 368 but in Arts. 245,246 and 248 read with Entry 97 of List 1;(ii) the amending power can not be used to abridge or take away the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution;(iii) a law amending the Constitution is "Law" within the meaning of Art. 13(2) and (iv). The First,Fourth and Seventeenth Amendments though they abridged fundamental rights were valid in the past on the basis of earlier decisions of this Court and continue to be valid for the future. On the application of the doctrine of "prospective overruling",as enunciated in the judgment,the decision will have only prospective operation and Parliament will have no power to abridge or take away Fundamental Rights from the date of the judgment.
The Judgment of WANCHOO,BHARGAVA and MITTER,JJ. was delivered by WANCHOO,J. According to this Judgment (i) the power of amending the Constitution resides in Art. 368 and not in Arts. 245,246 and 248,read with Entry 97 of List 1;(ii) there,are no restrictions on the power if the procedure in Art. 368 is followed and all the Parts of the Constitution including Part III can be amended,(iii) an amendment of the Constitution is not "'law" under Art. 13(2);and (iv) the doctrine of "prospective overruling" cannot be applied in India.
HIDAYATULLAH,J. delivered a separate judgment agreeing with SUBBA RAO,CJ. on the following two points:(i) that the power to amend the Constitution cannot be used to abridge or take away fundamental rights;and (ii) that a law amending the Constitution is "law" under Art. 13 (2). He agrees With WANCHOO,J. that the power to amend does not reside in Arts. 245 and 248 read with Entry 97 of List 1.
Art. 368,according to him,is sui generis and procedural and the procedure when correctly followed,results in an amendment. He does not rely on the doctrine of "prospective overruling". As regards the First,Fourth and Seventh Amendments,these having long endured and been acquiesced in,he does not treat the question of their validity as being before him. As regards the Seventeenth Amendment he finds sufficient support for it in the Constitution as amended by the First,Fourth and Seventh Amendments and holds that the new definition of "estate",introduced by the Amendment,though it is "law" under Art. 13 (2) and is an inroad into fundamental rights,is beyond the reach of the courts because it falls within the word "law" in Arts. 31 (1),(2),2A and 31A(1). He,however,declares section 3 of the Seventeenth Amendment Act ultra vires the amending process as an illegitimate exercise of the amending power. [BACHAWAT and RAMASWAMI,JJ. delivered separate judgments concurring with WANCHOO,J.]
He has contested for the President of India in 1967 as a candidate of united opposition parties. He lost the elections to Zakir Husain.
He died on 6 May 1976.
The Supreme Court of India is the supreme judicial authority and the highest court of the Republic of India. It is the final court of appeal for all civil and criminal cases in India. It also has the power of judicial review. The Supreme Court,which consists of the Chief Justice of India and a maximum of fellow 33 judges,has extensive powers in the form of original,appellate and advisory jurisdictions.
Yellapragada Subbarow was an Indian American biochemist who discovered the function of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) as an energy source in the cell,developed methotrexate for the treatment of cancer and led the department at Lederle laboratories in which Benjamin Minge Duggar discovered chlortetracycline in 1945.
Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College,commonly known by its former name Madras Law College,is a law school,located in Chennai (Madras),Tamil Nadu,India. It is also referred to as Government Law College or GLC,Chennai. It was established in 1891. It was renamed in 1990,as Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College,by the Government of Tamil Nadu in commemoration of the birth centenary of B. R. Ambedkar. In 1997,the Government of Tamil Nadu passed an Act which brought the college under the wings of the newly established Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University,splitting the college from the University of Madras.
The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore is the supreme law of Singapore. A written constitution,the text which took effect on 9 August 1965 is derived from the Constitution of the State of Singapore 1963,provisions of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia made applicable to Singapore by the Republic of Singapore Independence Act 1965,and the Republic of Singapore Independence Act itself. The text of the Constitution is one of the legally binding sources of constitutional law in Singapore,the others being judicial interpretations of the Constitution,and certain other statutes. Non-binding sources are influences on constitutional law such as soft law,constitutional conventions,and public international law.
Nanabhoy "Nani" Ardeshir Palkhivala was an Indian lawyer and jurist. Being lead counsel in cases such as Kesavananda Bharati v. The State of Kerala,I.C. Golaknath and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anrs.,Minerva Mills v. Union of India garnered him international recognition and cemented his reputation as one of India’s most eminent advocates.
The basic structure doctrine is a common law legal doctrine that the constitution of a sovereign state has certain characteristics that cannot be erased by its legislature. The doctrine is recognised in India,Bangladesh,Pakistan,and Uganda. It was developed by the Supreme Court of India in a series of constitutional law cases in the 1960s and 1970s that culminated in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala,where the doctrine was formally adopted. Bangladesh is perhaps the only legal system in the world which recognizes this doctrine with an expressed,written and rigid constitutional manner through article 7B of its Constitution.
Hans Raj Khanna was an Indian judge,jurist and advocate who propounded the basic structure doctrine in 1973 and attempted to uphold civil liberties during the time of Emergency in India in a lone dissenting judgement in 1976. He entered the Indian judiciary in 1952 as an Additional District and Sessions Judge and subsequently was elevated as a judge to the Supreme Court of India in 1971 where he continued till his resignation in 1977.
The 42nd amendment,officially known as The Constitution Act,1976,was enacted during the Emergency by the Indian National Congress government headed by Indira Gandhi.
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru &Ors. v. State of Kerala &Anr.,also known as the Kesavananda Bharati judgement,was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that outlined the basic structure doctrine of the Indian Constitution. The case is also known as the Fundamental Rights Case. The court in a 7-6 decision asserted its right to strike down amendments to the constitution that were in violation of the fundamental architecture of the constitution.
S. Obul Reddy was Chief Justice of High Courts of Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat and Governor of Andhra Pradesh in India.
Noble College in Machilipatnam was founded by late Robert Turlington Noble,an English missionary,in 1843. Rev. Noble came to then Masulipatnam as a Christian Missionary in 1841 and stayed until his death. He and his friend late Mr. Sharkey opened a native English school on 21 November 1843 as Noble High School. That school became Noble College later on. This school was termed by the head of the Madras Government "The Cambridge of South India." It is one of the first four educational institutions opened in India by the British Government.
The Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India,officially known as The Constitution Act,1971,curtailed the fundamental right to property,and permitted the acquisition of private property by the government for public use,on the payment of compensation which would be determined by the Parliament and not the courts. The amendment also exempted any law giving effect to the article 39(b) and (c) of Directive Principles of State Policy from judicial review,even if it violated the Fundamental Rights.
Amending the Constitution of India is the process of making changes to the nation's fundamental law or supreme law. The procedure of amendment in the constitution is laid down in Part XX of the Constitution of India. This procedure ensures the sanctity of the Constitution of India and keeps a check on arbitrary power of the Parliament of India.
The Government College (Autonomous) is located on the banks of River Godavari in Rajamahendravaram,Andhra Pradesh,India. It has been recognized as the 'College with Potential for Excellence' by the University Grants Commission in 2016.
Golaknath v. State Of Punjab,or simply the Golaknath case,was a 1967 Indian Supreme Court case,in which the Court ruled that Parliament could not curtail any of the Fundamental Rights in the Constitution.
The Twenty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India,officially known as The Constitution Act,1971,enables Parliament to dilute Fundamental Rights through Amendments of the Constitution. It also amended article 368 to provide expressly that Parliament has power to amend any provision of the Constitution. The amendment further made it obligatory for the President to give his assent,when a Constitution Amendment Bill was presented to him.
Gorla Rohini is a former Indian judge and currently head of a government commission investigating categories of Other Backward Classes in India. She was the first female Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court and also served as a judge on the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) &Anr. vs. Union of India &Ors. (2017),also known as the Right to Privacy verdict,is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India,which holds that the right to privacy is protected as a fundamental right under Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Judicial review in India is a process by which the Supreme Court and the High Courts of India examine,determine and invalidate the Executive or Legislative actions inconsistent with the Constitution of India. The word judicial review finds no mention in the Constitution of India but The Constitution of India implicitly provides for judicial review through Articles 13,32 and through 136,142 and 226.
The Forty-third Amendment of the Constitution of India,officially known as the Constitution Act,1977,repealed six articles that had been inserted into the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment which had been enacted by the Indira Gandhi-led Indian National Congress during the Emergency. The 43rd Amendment was enacted by the newly elected Janata Party which had won the 1977 general elections campaigning on a promise to "restore the Constitution to the condition it was in before the Emergency".