Who is Justice L. Nageswara Rao? 

Justice L. Nageswara Rao was born on 8^th June 1957 at Chirala, Andhra Pradesh. He got his degree in B.Com, B.L. from Nagarjuna University, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. 

How was the Career Journey of Justice L. Nageswara Rao? 

• Justice L. Nageswara Rao began his legal career at the District Court in Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, before practicing at the Andhra Pradesh High Court from January 1984. 
• In 1985, he started practicing at the Supreme Court of India and continued until his elevation as a Supreme Court Judge in 2016. 
• He served as the Additional Solicitor General of India twice, first from August 2003 to May 2004 and again from August 26, 2013, to December 18, 2014. 
• Justice Nageswara Rao took oath as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India retired on June 7, 2022. 

What are the Notable Judgments of Justice L. Nageswara Rao? 

• Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. The Chief Minister (2021) 
  • A five-judge bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, S.A. Nazeer, L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, and S. Ravindra Bhat reviewed the Maratha Reservation case. 
  • The bench quashed the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018, as amended in 2019. 
  • The Act had granted 12% and 13% reservation for the Maratha community in education and public employment, exceeding the 50% reservation cap. 
  • The court held that the Maratha reservation did not fall under exceptional circumstances as required by the Indra Sawhney case precedent.
• Rupali Devi v. State of U.P. (2019)
  • A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice L. Nageswara Rao, and Justice S.K. Kaul delivered a significant judgment on Section 498A IPC. 
  • The Court ruled that a wife can file a complaint in the jurisdiction where she takes shelter after leaving or being driven away from the matrimonial home due to cruelty. 
  • It emphasized that Section 498A covers both mental and physical cruelty, recognizing even silent suffering as a form of emotional distress. 
  • The Court held that the consequences of cruelty at the matrimonial home extend to the parental home, making them distinct offences committed there.
• Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020)  
  • A three-judge bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, and Ajay Rastogi ruled on a case involving alleged caste-based abuses during a property dispute. 
  • The Court held that no offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was made out in this instance. 
  • It reasoned that the alleged abuses were directed at a person claiming property rights, not specifically because they belonged to a Scheduled Caste. 
  • The Court clarified that property disputes involving a vulnerable section of society do not automatically constitute an offence under the Act unless the abuse is explicitly due to the victim's caste.

• Narendra v. K Meena (2016)  
  • A Bench comprising Justices A.R. Dave and L. Nageswara Rao heard a case where a husband sought divorce, alleging that his wife forced him to leave his parents. 
  • The Court emphasized that in Hindu society, a son has a pious obligation to support and maintain his parents. 
  • It noted that no son would willingly separate from his elderly parents and dependent family members, especially when financially supporting them. 
  • The Court held that a wife’s persistent efforts to force her husband to separate from his family could be considered an act of cruelty, justifying divorce.