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 motion against the Andhra Pradesh authorities and Chief Minister Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy for levelling “false, vague and political allegations” against Supreme Court decide Justice N.V. Ramana and different High Court judges.

The decide, who leads a three-member Bench, withdrew from hearing the case, explaining that he had, as a lawyer, represented a few of the events concerned within the case. Justice Lalit is likely one of the few senior advocates who was straight elevated as Supreme Court decide within the historical past of the court docket.

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

The Bench then recorded a brief order, requesting Chief Justice of India S.A. Bobde to listing the case earlier than an applicable Bench.

The petitions are involved with a letter by Mr. Reddy addressed to the Chief Justice of India against the judges and the following revelation of its contents throughout a press convention on October 10.

Recently, Attorney General K.K. Venugopal had refrained from giving his statutory consent to pleas looking for contempt of court docket motion against Mr. Reddy and his Principal Advisor Ajeya Kallam.

Also learn | A constitutional pickle of the Andhra form

Mr. Venugopal mentioned it was as much as the CJI, who’s “seized of the letter,” to take an applicable choice. Supreme Court advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, in his contempt plea to Mr. Venugopal, claimed that the choice of a Bench led by Justice Ramana on September 16, directing expeditious completion of pending felony trials against politicians had spurred Mr. Reddy to jot down the letter. Mr. Reddy, the lawyer mentioned, had 31 felony circumstances against him.

A petitioner-in-person, advocate G.S. Mani, has accused Mr. Reddy of “misusing his official post”. The same petition has additionally been filed by an NGO, Anti Corruption Council of India Trust.

The third petition is by one other lawyer, Sunil Kumar Singh, who has urged the highest court docket to problem an order to bar Mr. Reddy from making public statements against the judiciary and holding press conferences to malign the judicial establishment.

Editorial | Unpleasant spectacle

The Constitution doesn’t enable such deliberate makes an attempt to publicly embarrass the judiciary.

“What is at stake is the confidence that courts inspire 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 contended.

The proper place to convey allegations against the upper judiciary is Parliament or the State Legislature and never press conferences, he has argued. The petition mentioned the constitutional immunity granted to the judiciary is to permit them to perform fearlessly.