The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a petition seeking action against Andhra Pradesh chief minister YS Jaganmohan Reddy, who accused a senior judge of the apex court of trying to interfere in and influence the functioning of Andhra Pradesh high court.
The petition was filed by two Supreme Court lawyers — GS Mani and Pradeep Kumar Yadav — against Jagan’s decision to write a letter to Chief Justice of India (CJI) SA Bobde against Justice NV Ramana, who is the senior most judge of the SC t after the CJI. The petition accused the CM of misusing his office and attacking the independence of the judiciary.
A three-judge bench — headed by Justice SK Kaul and also comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy —held that a prayer to gag the CM from making allegations or seeking action against him was “not maintainable”. The bench told the petitioners that another SC bench recently lifted a gag order by the HC in a dispute arising out of an FIR lodged by the Andhra government in the Amaravati land case against relatives of Justice Ramana. “Since the dispute is pending consideration before that bench, whatever consequences have to follow will also be gone into by that bench,” the court said.
On another prayer for a judicial probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation against Justice Ramana, the bench said, “...If you are wanting an in-house inquiry that will be looked into by the CJI. Why should we direct an inquiry?” The court dismissed the PIL by Mani and Yadav, as well as a separate one filed by one Anti-Corruption Council of India Trust over similar demands. It, however, agreed to send a third PIL seeking examination of whether a CM should refrain from making unfounded allegations in open against a judge.
{{/usCountry}}On another prayer for a judicial probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation against Justice Ramana, the bench said, “...If you are wanting an in-house inquiry that will be looked into by the CJI. Why should we direct an inquiry?” The court dismissed the PIL by Mani and Yadav, as well as a separate one filed by one Anti-Corruption Council of India Trust over similar demands. It, however, agreed to send a third PIL seeking examination of whether a CM should refrain from making unfounded allegations in open against a judge.
{{/usCountry}}