Who is Justice P S Narsimha?

Justice P S Narsimha was born on 3^rd May 1963, in Hyderabad to Smt. Satyavati and the late Justice Shri P. Kodanda Ramayya. He has carved an illustrious career in the legal arena, distinguished by his expertise, diligence, and commitment to justice. His journey from a promising law student to a Senior Advocate, and eventually to the esteemed position of a Judge of the Supreme Court of India, is marked by his significant contributions to jurisprudence, advocacy, and legal reforms.

How was the Career Journey of Justice P S Narsimha?

• Justice P S Narsimha embarked on his legal journey after graduating from Nizam College with triple majors in Economics, Political Science, and Public Administration.
• He further honed his skills at the Campus Law Centre, Delhi University, graduating in 1988.
• Beginning his practice as an Advocate in Hyderabad, he later transitioned to the Supreme Court, handling diverse cases including those before Constitution Benches.
• Notably, he served as commission counsel for the Justice Chinnappa Reddy Commission and was designated Senior Advocate by the Supreme Court in 2008. Specializing in public law, he became Additional Solicitor General of India in 2014, contributing significantly to landmark cases.
• His expertise extended internationally, representing India before prestigious tribunals.
• He was elevated directly from the Bar, Justice P S Narsimha became a Judge of the Supreme Court in 2021, culminating his illustrious career.

What are the Notable Cases of Justice P S Narsimha?

• Sukh Dutt Rutra v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2022):
  • The court emphasized the state's inability to hide behind procedural delays.
  • The case involved Sukh Dutt Ratra and Bhagat Ram, aggrieved by the Himachal Pradesh High Court's disposal of their writ petition without addressing the core issue of land acquisition.
  • Despite a delay in approaching the court, the appellants' fundamental rights, including the right to property, were deemed paramount.
  • The state's selective actions in land acquisition were deemed arbitrary, warranting intervention to ensure justice and fair compensation.
• Amar Nath v. Gian Chand (2022):
  • The High Court reversed the lower courts' findings in a suit regarding property ownership.
  • The plaintiff, a junior engineer, alleged an oral agreement to sell his property for Rs. 55,000.
  • A power of attorney was executed in favor of the second defendant.
  • When the sale fell through, the plaintiff claimed the power of attorney was cancelled.
  • However, evidence suggested otherwise.
  • The Supreme Court noted the mere writing of 'cancelled' on the power of attorney did not nullify it.
    • Hence, the sale deed was deemed valid, and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed.
• Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India (2022):
  • In a case concerning compassionate employment for the children of a deceased railway employee's second wife, the court observed that denying such appointments solely based on descent violated constitutional principles.
  • The deceased, Jagdish Harijan, had two wives, and his son through the second wife, Mukesh Kumar, sought compassionate appointment after his father's death.
  • Rejecting the Railway Board's circular, the court ruled it discriminatory under Article 16(2) of the Constitution.
  • The judgment emphasized equal treatment and dignity for all legitimate children, regardless of their parents' marital status.
• Cox and Kings Limited v. SAP India Private Limited (2023):
  • The Supreme Court Constitution Bench was tasked with determining the applicability and statutory basis of the 'Group of Companies doctrine' in proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
  • Highlighting variations in its application, the Court questioned its statutory source.
  • The major questions revolved around interpreting Sections 8 and 45 of the A& C Act and the validity of the doctrine.
  • The Court determined that while the doctrine aids in deciphering parties' intentions, it should be subsumed under Section 7(4)(b) for certainty.
  • It concluded that the phrase "claiming through or under" does not confer party status, and the Chloro Controls India (P) Ltd v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. (2013) was erroneous.
  • The doctrine's application should be aligned with parties' mutual intent and statutory provisions, ensuring systematic legal development.
• Supriyo v. Union of India (2023):
  • A five-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha pronounced the judgment refusing to recognize the same-sex marriage.
  • The court said that allow same-sex marriage would amount to judicial legislation.