Jaganmohan Reddy vs judges | Justice U.U. Lalit recuses from hearing pleas against Andhra CM, govt


    Jaganmohan Reddy vs judges|Justice U.U. Lalit recuses from hearing pleas against Andhra CM, govt

    Justice U.U. Lalit of the Supreme Court on Monday recused himself from hearing separate writ petitions that sought action against the Andhra Pradesh government and Chief Minister Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy for levelling “false, unclear and political accusations” against Supreme Court judge Justice N.V. Ramana and other High Court judges.

    The judge, who leads a three-member Bench, withdrew from hearing the case, discussing that he had, as an attorney, represented some of the celebrations included in the case. Justice Lalit is among the couple of senior supporters who was directly raised as Supreme Court judge in the history of the court.

    ” I have problem in hearing this … I can not take up this matter. I have as a lawyer represented some of these parties,” Justice Lalit addressed the petitioners.

    The Bench then taped a short order, asking for Chief Justice of India S.A. Bobde to list the case prior to a proper Bench.

    The petitions are worried about a letter by Mr. Reddy dealt with to the Chief Justice of India versus the judges and the subsequent discovery of its contents throughout a press conference on October 10.

    Recently, Attorney General Of The United States K.K. Venugopal had actually avoided offering his statutory authorization to pleas looking for contempt of court action against Mr. Reddy and his Principal Consultant Ajeya Kallam.

    Also checked out| A constitutional pickle of the Andhra kind

    Mr. Venugopal said it depended on the CJI, who is “seized of the letter,” to take a suitable decision. Supreme Court supporter Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, in his contempt plea to Mr. Venugopal, declared that the choice of a Bench led by Justice Ramana on September 16, directing expeditious completion of pending criminal trials versus political leaders had spurred Mr. Reddy to write the letter. Mr. Reddy, the attorney said, had 31 criminal cases versus him.

    A petitioner-in-person, advocate G.S. Mani, has implicated Mr. Reddy of “misusing his main post”. A similar petition has also been submitted by an NGO, Anti Corruption Council of India Trust.

    The third petition is by another lawyer, Sunil Kumar Singh, who has prompted the leading court to provide an order to disallow Mr. Reddy from making public statements versus the judiciary and holding press conferences to revile the judicial institution.

    Editorial| Unpleasant phenomenon

    The Constitution does not enable such purposeful efforts to publicly embarrass the judiciary.

    ” What is at stake is the self-confidence that courts influence in the public in a democracy … Discussions can go wild in the media within hours or days and affect the image of the judiciary,” Mr. Singh competed.

    The ideal location to bring claims versus the greater judiciary is Parliament or the State Legislature and not interview, he has actually argued. The petition stated the constitutional immunity approved to the judiciary is to permit them to work fearlessly.

    ( the heading, this story has not been published by Crucial India News personnel and is released from a syndicated feed.).


    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here