Top
Top Stories

"Not Maintainable": Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Removal Of Andhra Pradesh CM Jagan Mohan Reddy

Sanya Talwar
1 Dec 2020 9:05 AM GMT
Not Maintainable: Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Removal Of Andhra Pradesh CM Jagan Mohan Reddy
x
Petition filed by Advocate Sunil Kumar Singh has been tagged with the petition filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh challenging the interim order passed by the High Court on September 15.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed the plea seeking appropriate action against Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Jagan Mohan Reddy for making public allegations against Justice N V Ramana, the second senior judge of the Supreme Court.A bench of Justices SK Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy observed,"The petitioners have made a dual prayer. The first prayer seeks to say that a senior...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed the plea seeking appropriate action against Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Jagan Mohan Reddy for making public allegations against Justice N V Ramana, the second senior judge of the Supreme Court.

A bench of Justices SK Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy observed,

"The petitioners have made a dual prayer. The first prayer seeks to say that a senior most sitting judge of the HC or the CBI should look into the scandalising remarks made by the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh. The second prayer is for issuance of writ of quo- warranto and that in view of the statements made by him he is not entitled to hold the office of Chief Minister. The second prayer legally would not be maintainable. In so far as the first prayer is concerned, it seems that the petitioner is himself not clear as to what he wants. The issue raised with regard to the communication between the CM of Andhra Pradesh and CJI in public domain is already being referred to the bench which is dealing with this aspect. Though pertinent, we see no purpose in entertaining the present petition and hereby dismiss it."
- Supreme Court

Two practicing Advocates had moved the Supreme Court seeking action against Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, YS Jagan Reddy, for falsely accusing second-senior most Judge of the Court, Justice NV Ramana, of interfering with the administration of justice.

The Petitioner-Advocate GS Mani told the court that the scandalising remarks by AP CM YS Jagan Reddy were an abuse of his constitutional office and that they attacked right at the independence of the judiciary.

Justice Kaul said that though It is a scandalising remark and it has been released to the public, what is the inquiry required into this?

He then added,

"Cannot have such prayers entertained without non-application of mind"

- Justice SK Kaul

The Petitioner(s) GS Mani and Pradeep Kumar Yadav have asserted that the Executive should not overtake the judiciary; however in the present case, Reddy has "disturbed" judicial independence by making false allegations against a sitting judge.

"No one including these PIL writ petitioners have never or ever entertain corruption in the government as well as in the judiciary. But at the same time independence and integrity of Judiciary is most important. A person who is holding the post of head of the State Executive should not overtake the judiciary by making a false allegations against the sitting judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The general public confidence over the judiciary is paramount important. If public lost their confidence and faith over the judiciary there is no purpose remains," the plea states.

The plea stated that if Reddy was aggrieved over any issue which is pending in the court, he had a full right to challenge the same before the highest forum of court in accordance with law. However, "without taking any legal steps as per law", he wrote a letter to the CJI, making "vague allegations" against a sitting judge of the Top Court, and even published the same in the public domain, "only to tarnish the image" of the country's apex judicial institution.

The Petitioners further stated that Reddy has attempted to lower public confidence in the judiciary, for his personal gain, as he himself is facing many number of criminal cases with the CBI and the Court.

On October 11, Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy, the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, wrote a complaint to the Chief Justice of India, S A Bobde, alleging that some High Court judges are attempting to protect the interests of the major opposition party, Telugu Desom Party, in politically sensitive matters.

A striking feature of the complaint - details of which were revealed to the media in a presser by Ajaya Kellam, the advisor of the CM, on Saturday evening - was that it had accused senior Supreme Court judge, Justice N V Ramana, who is next in line to be the Chief Justice of India, of influencing the administration of justice in the High Court.

A plea has also been moved before the Supreme Court stating that the contents of Reddy's letter have put the confidence of people in Judiciary at stake.

One of the plea's by Advocate Sunil Kumar Singh argued by Advocate Mukti Singh which stated that the conduct of the Chief Minister was in derogation of the principles established in terms of the EMS Nambooripad case was tagged along with the petition filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh challenging the interim order passed by the High Court on September 15.

On November 25, top court stayed the Andhra Pradesh High Court's gag order on media reporting and social media comments on the contents of the Amaravati land scam FIR.

The top court has listed the matter for hearing in January 2021 and has directed the parties to file their counter affidavits in the meantime. The Court has also requested the High Court not to decide the writ petition in the meanwhile.

Next Story
Share it