E-Paper
YSRC accuses high court, top court judge of trying to topple its govt
This is the first time that the Jagan government has made a direct attack on the higher judiciary, though his party leaders and ministers have been making statements against high court judges for stalling various decisions of the government, including the so-called three capitals plan.
The Andhra Pradesh government on Saturday accused Supreme Court judge N V Ramana and the state high court of attempting to destabilise and topple the YSR Congress government in the state led by chief minister Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy under the directions of Telugu Desam Party president N Chandrababu Naidu.
The allegations, which could not be verified by Hindustan Times, were made in a press conference in Hyderabad late on Saturday evening. The state government also issued a statement to this effect. A letter written by Reddy to Chief Justice of India SA Bobde, in which the chief minister detailed his allegations about the proximity of Justice Ramana to Naidu, and the adversarial stance taken by the high court against his government’s decisions as well as investigations into charges against judicial officers and their relatives, was also released at the conference. The letter had detailed annexures listing specific judgements, and naming judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
HT could not immediately reach Justice Ramana, the second senior most judge in the apex court after CJI Bobde. Neither he nor his assistant could be reached over phone; and the phone at his official residence was answered by a person who said the judge wasn’t at home.
This is the first time that the Jagan government has made a direct attack on the higher judiciary, though his party leaders and ministers have been making statements against high court judges for stalling various decisions of the government, including the so-called three capitals plan.
In his letter to CJI Bobde, Reddy accused the state judiciary of being biased in favour of the TDP and its interests in the nature of the orders passed staying investigation, staying enquiry, even in admitting cases for hearing.
The press conference was addressed by the CM’s principal advisor Ajeya Kallam ; this is likely the first time a sitting chief minister has made an allegation of such a serious nature against one of the senior most judges in the Supreme Court.
Also Read: Days after meeting Amit Shah, Jagan Reddy meets PM Modi; seeks Centre’s help for 3 capitals
The government said in its statement that the state high court has entertained several writ petitions against the Reddy government’s decisions, including a bill on the creation of three capitals bills, in order to protect the vested interests in Amaravati, the new capital identified by the Naidu government that was previously in power in the state. The decision to shift the capital of Andhra Pradesh from Amaravati was taken by the Reddy government after it came to power. Nearly 30 public interest litigation petitions (PILs) were filed at various stages of legitimate government functioning, impleading the chief minister as a respondent, the statement pointed out.
In his letter to CJI Bobde, Reddy referred to Justice Ramana’s proximity to Naidu. He also added that Justice Ramana as “influencing the sittings of the High Court including the roster .... and ... matters important to the TDP have been allocated to a few” judges. The annexures listed these cases and the orders issued by the judges.
Justice Ramana started influencing the judiciary in the state through chief justice Jitendra Kumar Maheswari, the statement by the state government claimed. “Justice Ramana influenced the roster of high court judges so that important matters of policy and protection for Naidu’s interests were posted before a few judges including Justice A V Sesha Sai, Justice M Satyanarayana Murthy, Justice D V S S Somayyajulu and Justice D Ramesh,” the statement added.
Reddy ended his letter to CJI Bobde by seeking him to initiate steps to ensure the neutrality of the state judiciary, and offered to substantiate all the details provided in the annexure to his letter.
