The Supreme Court Collegium in its meeting held on August 6, 2026 has recommended elevation of Justice Valluri Kameswar Rao as the 49th Chief Justice of the Patna High Court. Justice Rao is currently serving on the Delhi High Court. He served as the judge of Karnataka High court from June 1, 2024 to May 29 2025 where he also served as Acting Chief Justice from May 29, 2025, until his repatriation to Delhi High Court on July 21, 2025.
Before his repatriation to Delhi High Court, on July 14, 2025, as Acting Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court as part of a Division Bench Justice Rao directed the state government to file a status report on the probe into the alleged police encounter of Ritesh Kumar (35), a migrant laborer from Bihar who had been accused of raping and murdering a young girl in Hubballi. The police had shot dead the accused on April 13, 2025 within hours of the offence. Police claimed that he was killed while attempting to escape custody or during an attack on officers, shortly after his apprehension. Justice Rao passed the order upon hearing a petition filed by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Karnataka. The PUCL had moved the High Court with a prayer to direct the authorities to preserve the body of the deceased so that the evidence as may be required during the investigation is available, and if the body is cremated, the evidence would be lost and the rule of law would suffer. It was also prayed to issue directions to form a special team of autopsy, surgeons, and forensic experts, preferably from New Delhi or a state other than Karnataka, to undertake an independent examination and to do an autopsy of the dead bodies of both the deceased and the victim. The court directed the authorities to preserve the samples of the parts of the body collected during the autopsy to be made available as may be required for investigation. The court also directed the authorities to videograph the entire postmortem procedure. The Supreme Court laid down the guidelines in its judgment of 2014 to be observed by the police and other authorities in police encounter cases resulting in the death of persons. On March 2, 2026, the High Court directed an independent judicial inquiry, to be conducted by a judicial magistrate, into the alleged police encounter killing. A judicial inquiry was mandatory in cases of encounter deaths. The case was listed on June 8, 2026. Hubballi's alleged encounter has left many questions unanswered, it raises concerns over bypassing of due process. Justice Rao's role was crucial to the case of the Bihari migrant worker, which has sent a chilling message directed at the growing migrant population.
In his first judgement April 29, 2013 as judge of the Delhi High Court in Ramesh Kumar vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors. Anr. (2013), as part of a Division Bench, he delivered a judgement dated April 29, 2013, wherein, he dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner, the Inspector (Investigation), P.S Lajpat Nagar (South District), New Delhi, who was suspended on August 7, 2007 and thereafter departmental enquiry was initiated against him. The petitioner had helped a person accused in FIR No.705/2007 namely Bala Singh for offences punishable under Sections 448, 427, 420, 468, 471, 506/34, IPC, P.S. Lajpat Nagar, to grab Naveen Kumar Bhatia's property in Lajpat Nagar. The proceedings initiated against the Inspector had culminated in a punishment order whereby the disciplinary authority had imposed the penalty of forfeiture of three years approved service permanently entailing proportionate reduction in pay. The appeal filed against the order was rejected by the appellate authority. The petitioner had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.
Justice Rao drew on "Wednesbury unreasonableness test" enunciated in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. vs. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223) for administrative law and the principles laid down in Council of Civil Service Unions (CCSU) vs. Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374, the famous GCHQ case. The Wedensbury test applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it. This test refers to the scope of Judicial review if the case at hand passes the principles that the administrative action is (i) illegal , (ii) suffers from procedural improprieties, (iii) relevant matters not taken into account, (iv) irrelevant matters are taken into account. Under such circumstances, the administrative action will be considered as absurd or perverse or not bonafide and the administrative action is liable for judicial review. The CCSU Principle accepts the principles enunciated in the Wedensbury test but adds one more dimension that (v) if the administrative action defies logic, then there is scope for judicial review.
Justice Rao concluded: "....what has been proved is that the petitioner had made 79 plus 4 calls to Bala Singh for about one month prior to registration of FIR and few days thereafter. He could not prove that he had any family or friendly relationship with Bala Singh nor he could be able to prove that Bala Singh was a police informer. There is no reason for him to engage himself in conversation with Bala Singh on so many occasions. This would not, as observed by the Tribunal, 'augur well for a police officer'. To that extent, the punishment imposed on the petitioner would not be disproportionate. 9. Hence, we are of the view that the present petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed." The judgement was authored by Justice Rao.
On his request, Justice Rao was transferred to the Karnataka High Court.
In Smt. Mohini Kumari. A vs. The Commissioner & Ors. (2024), as part of the Division bench of the Karnataka High Court, passed an order dated June 26, 2024, wherein, he set aside the order dated April 3, 2018 by a Single Judge bench because he was of the view that "the learned Single Judge has erred in coming to the conclusion" regarding the direction for appointment of Smt. Chetana Rogannavar Rajaram. Smt. Mohini Kumari, the appellant had challenged the impugned order on the ground that, she was not made a party in the proceedings, although she had applied for the post of Typist with all necessary documents. Her application was considered by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education Department, Bengaluru, the respondent and she was selected. The Job Oriented Course (JOC) possessed by Smt. Rajaram was not declared as equivalent to that of Pre-University Course (PUC), by Government of Karnataka, the respondent no. 1. Justice Rao concluded that the impugned order of the Single Judge suffers from legal infirmity.
Justice Rao enrolled as an advocate in March, 1991. He was designated as senior advocate by the Delhi High Court in January, 2010. He was elevated as Additional Judge of Delhi High Court on April 17, 2013 and as permanent judge on March 18, 2015. He was transferred as a judge of Karnataka High Court and assumed office on June 1, 2024. Justice Rao's roots of the family that is Andhra Pradesh, which his father left in the year 1954 and went to Delhi with his mother whom he married in 1951.
Justice Rao disapproves of sealed cover jurisprudence which leads to a culture of opacity because a one-sided submission causes serious violation of natural justice.
