Honourable Shri. Justice Konda Madhava Reddy is a Former Chief Justice of the Hyderabad High Court and Bombay High Court, Konda Madhava Reddy (1923–1997). His lordship also served as a member of the Council of Smaller States in New Delhi. Justice Reddy was a prominent figure in the larger Indian courts as well as in Andhra Pradesh’s educational, cultural, and social institutions.
BACKGROUND
Justice Konda Madhava Reddy was born on October 21, 1923, in Sahrajpet, Nalgonda District, State of Andhra Pradesh, to Shri Konda Venkata Ranga Reddy and Tungabhadramma. He came from an illustrious line of independence fighters. He completed his education from Government High School, Chanderghat, Hyderabad. Finshed Bachelors in Political Science and Economics from Nizam College, Hyderabad, MA Economics from Fergusson College, Poona and LLB from Bombay University. Mr. Reddy married Jayalatha Devi. The couple had 3 daughters and 1 son, Konda Vishweshwar Reddy who is a Telangana lawmaker from the Chevella Lok Sabha district.
JUDICIAL CAREER
On September 2, 1944, His Lordship registered as an attorney with the High Court of Hyderabad. His Lordship attained distinction in the legal profession and worked on both the original and appellate sides as well as before the Special Tribunals in Hyderabad. From 6th June, 1966 to 5th November,1967, his Lordship served as Government Pleader in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Then From 6th November,1967 to 28th November, 1968, Mr. Reddy served as a Public Prosecutor. On 28th May, 1968 his Lordship was appointed to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, and on 23rd March, 1982 he was named Acting Chief Justice. On April 14, 1883, His Lordship was appointed Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. His Lordship served as the Bombay High Court’s Chief Justice from 8.4.1984 until his retirement on October 21, 1995.
His lordship passed away on 25 September 1997, after suffering from non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Among his peers, Justice Reddy is known as being soft-spoken, reflective, fair, rational, and just with an instinctive sense of justice. He is frequently credited with having excellent knowledge of the law and facts. He was a total gentleman, always helpful, friendly, and modest. He avoided emotional ideas and never became irritated. He provided clarity of thinking to any topic, enabling others around him to make the best choice. He was an advocate for education, a scholar, and a lawyer.
Justice Konda Madava Reddy was founder and on the forefront of several educational, social and cultural organizations in the state of Andhra Pradesh. He led various educational institutes. He served as the organization’s first chairman and president when it operated a school and an engineering college. Additionally, he served as president of the AV Educational Society, a Premier organisation that manages institutions and schools. He was Chairman of Kuchipudi Dance Arts Academy’s chairman. Chairman of the organisation Indra Seva Sadan, which works to support the underprivileged classes. It manages educational facilities and orphanages. The late Justice Konda Madhava Reddy loved sports. He played tennis and hockey.
Some Judgements by late Justice Konda Madhava Reddy-
In “G. Nalini vs The Director, Medical Education”, the appellant had appeared for the entrance examination held for admission to M. B. B. S. course in the college of the State of Andhra Pradesh in which the appellant received fewer marks than the final candidate admitted for a position that was up for open competition, but she received more marks than the candidates admitted for positions reserved for members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Backward Clauses. The appellant added that she would have gotten more marks if the paper had been manually revised. But it should be noted that every script for a response is often evaluated mechanically rather than by hand. The appellant prayed for a writ of mandamus to value her answer scripts manually, to review the admissions made against the reserved categories. The court held that- No matter which category a candidate falls into, a merit list with all of the candidates listed in order of merit is created. A different list of applicants who qualify for consideration under a certain type of reservation is also created. It is also important to remember that reservation was not made in favor of particular candidate but in favor of SC, ST and OBCs to make sure they are not debarred from competing with others and securing a seat thrown open to all. The reservation is designed to guarantee a minimum number of seats for the specific category and is not meant to deny them seats they may otherwise be able to obtain on the basis of merit and this case does not violates anyone’s rights. The end result was that the appeal was dismissed.
In “Ravur Venkata Subbaiah vs Meruga Kamalamma”, The appeal is in favour of issuing a divorce judgement and ordering that the mother, who is the respondent in this case, have custody of the young kid. According to the father, the mother has illicit affairs, is a drunkard, come home late at nights and would also leave the child alone. The father has stated he has tried to make amends with the mothers but it all was futile. Ultimately on 29-10-1978, the mother left the matrimonial home and the child and never returned. The custody of the child is with the father. Now according to the facts stated by the mother, the father (appellant) was impotent. The husband himself forced the wife to have extra-martial affair in order to have a child, after the birth of the child, the husband even made attempts to kill the wife in order to cover up impotency. The wife left the home along with the child but when husband discovered them, he took away the child leaving behind the wife. This case comes under Hindu Marriage Act and Guardianship act. The court held that it is the wife who is also the mother and respondent in the case, she should have the kid as according to the mentioned acts, the mother should have the custody of a child under 5 years of age. The mother should have custody of the child if illegitimate. On top of that regardless of the claims given by the appellant, the father was employed hence, won’t be able to take care of the child.
REFRENCES
- Official website of Bombay High Court, https://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/cjshow.php?bhcpar=amdldGlkPTIyJnBhZ2Vubz0y
- Brief Bio Data of Justice Konda Madhava Reddy, Justice Konda Madhava Reddy Foundation, http://jkmrfoundation.in/Biodata.aspx
- G. Nalini vs The Director, Medical Education AIR 1984 AP 321
- Ravur Venkata Subbaiah vs Meruga Kamalamma AIR 1982 AP 369
Aishwarya Says:
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.
Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter Youtube and Instagram.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at secondinnings.hr@gmail.com
In the year 2021, we wrote about 1000 Inspirational Women In India, in the year 2022, we would be featuring 5000 Start Up Stories.