Introduction

Justice Koka Subba Rao also known as K Subba Rao was born on 15^th July 1902. He was born into a Velama family at Rajamahendravaram, present-day Andhra Pradesh. He was 9^th Chief Justice of India (CJI). He was the first Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court and the first judge from Andhra Pradesh to be appointed the CJI. He is known for his dissenting opinions. He has given 42 dissenting opinions in several landmark cases. He died on 6^th May 1976.

How was the Career Journey of K Subba Rao?

• Justice K Subba Rao studied law from Law College, Madras.
• He enrolled as an Advocate of the Madras HC on 13^th December 1926.
• He was appointed as Permanent Judge Madras HC on 22^nd March 1948.
• He was appointed as Chief Justice of Andhra HC on its formation from 5^th July, 1954.
• He was appointed as Judge of Supreme Court on 31^st January 1958 and was appointed as CJI on 29^th June 1966.
• He resigned as CJI on 11^th April 1967 to contest for the post of President of India, however, he lost to Zakir Husain.

What were the Notable Judgments of K Subba Rao?

• Basheshar Nath v. CIT (1958):
  • The Court said that fundamental rights cannot be waived.
  • In the United States basic rights can be waived, but Justice K Subba Rao said that it is not in the case of India.
  • Justice K Subba Rao argued that many people in India are unaware of their rights and should not be pressured to give them up to the State.
• M. S. M. Sharma v. Shri Sri Krishna Sinha (1959):
  • The SC in this case said that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution do not override privileges provided under Article 194 of the Constitution.
  • However, Justice K Subba Rao dissented stating that 194(4) is subject to Fundamental Rights.
• Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962):
  • The SC ruled that the constitutional validity of provisions permitting police to conduct domiciliary visits on 'habitual criminals' or those prone to becoming habitual criminals is null and void.
  • In this case the court did not recognize the Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right under Article 21.
  • However, Justice K Subba Rao dissented stating that the right of personal liberty in Art. 21 implies the right of an individual to be free from restrictions or encroachments on his person, whether those restrictions or encroachments are directly imposed or indirectly brought about by calculated measures.
  • He considered Right to Privacy a part of Article 21.
• State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George (1965):
  • In this case following test was propounded by the court to ascertain whether mens rea can be imputed on any provision, which is silent on the same:
  • Firstly, where the statute does not contain the word “knowingly”, the first thing to do is to examine the statute to see whether the ordinary presumption that mens rea is required applies or not.
  • Secondly, the court of law is required to have regard to the subject matter of the legislation.
• Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967):
  • In this case Justice K Subba Rao held that the third part of the Constitution, which talks about Fundamental Rights, cannot be changed by Parliament.
  • He introduced the idea of "prospective overruling," meaning that the court's decision would affect the future but not past changes.
  • The judgment does not impact earlier amendments but stops future changes to Part III.