Judge of Supreme Court of India
NAME – Lavu Nageswara Rao
PROFESSION– Judge
BORN – 08/06/1957
PLACE OF BIRTH – Pedanandipadu in Guntur district of Andhra Pradesh
FATHER’S NAME – N/A
MOTHER’S NAME –N/A
SPOUSE – N/A
SIBLINGS – N/A
CHILDREN – N/A
EDUCATION –
Educated at Loyola Public School, Guntur
Did his B.Com., B.L., from Nagarjuna University, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh
AWARDS – N/A
SPECIALISATION-N/A
COMMITTEE/ PANEL HEADED- Member of the Mudgal Committee appointed by the Supreme Court to conduct an independent inquiry into allegations of corruption, betting and spot-fixing in Indian Premier League matches
BACKGROUND –
L. Nageswara Rao was born in Guntur district of Andhra Pradesh. He was educated at Loyola Public School, Guntur. He completed his B.Com., B.L. from. Nagarjuna University, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.
He practiced in the High court of Andhra Pradesh before shifting his practice to the Supreme Court of India. He was designated as a Senior Advocate in 2000 in Andhra Pradesh High Court, at that time he was one of the most highly paid lawyers in the country.
He was the advocate in J. Jayalalita case of Karnataka High Court and was successful in reversing the trial court Judgement and getting her acquitted.He served thrice as an Additional Solicitor General of India. Firstly, under NDA government , then under UPA Government in 2003, and then in 2014, under the present (BJP) Government.
CAREER TIMELINE
1982- Enrolled as an Advocate at Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh
1984, July- Practiced at the District Court, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh
1985- Practiced at the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad
1995- Practiced at the Supreme Court of India
2000- Designated as a Senior Advocate by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in December, 2000
2003- Served as Additional Solicitor General of India
2016-Appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS–
Mukesh Kumar And Anr v. State of Uttarakhand And Ors.-
A Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justices L. Nageswara Rao observed that the State government is not bound to make reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to for promotion to public appointment or posts. There is no fundamental right is provided for such a claim to reservation in promotions.
Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd., represented by Managing Director (Administration and HR) v. Sri C. Nagaraju-
It was held that the Disciplinary Authority is not bound by the judgment of a Criminal Court if the evidence produced in Departmental Inquiry is contradictory or different from the evidence produced during a Criminal Trial. Criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings differ from each other, their objective is entirely different. Disciplinary proceedings are done to find out the accused is guilty of such misconduct which would merit his removal from service or give a lesser punishment.
The objective of criminal proceedings is to find out whether the offences registered against him are proved and the suitable punishment. The standard of procedure, evidence and mode of inquiry in both the cases are significantly distinct and different.
CONTROVERSIES – N/A
REMARKABLE ACHIEVEMENTS– N/A