Ashwini Upadhyay, had again written to the Attorney General asking him to reconsider his decision.
New Delhi:
Attorney General KK Venugopal has refused to reconsider his refusal to initiate contempt proceedings against Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Jagan Mohan Reddy for the second time regarding his charges against a Supreme Court judge.
Mr. Venugopal had denied attorney Ashwini Upadhyay permission on November 2 to initiate contempt proceedings in the matter. However, the Attorney General said that his refusal to consent cannot prevent Mr. Upadhyay from approaching the court, which may suo motu initiate contempt proceedings against the Chief Minister.
On October 6, Mr. Reddy had written to the Chief Justice of India SA Bobde about Justice NV Ramana, a Senior Justice of the Supreme Court, alleging that he was working against the elected state government after his orders to expedite pending prosecution against the Chief Minister’s YSR congressional legislators.
Mr. Reddy claimed that the superior judge was acting on behalf of his opposition, the Telugu Desam Party of former Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu. He also accused Judge Ramana of colluding with the High Court judges and said they acted at his behest.
Mr. Upadhyay, the petitioner in the case in which Judge Ramana’s orders came, had requested contempt proceedings against the Chief Minister.
Venugopal had said prima facie that the timing of the Chief Minister’s letter to the Chief Justice of India, and which was made public, was suspect in the context of Judge Ramana’s orders in September to speed up trials against lawmakers in exercise and former lawmakers, including Jagan Mohan Reddy.
“Since the letter was addressed directly to the Chief Justice of India, the CJI has taken up the case and it would not be appropriate for me to deal with it,” the Attorney General said last Monday, explaining why he would not initiate a contempt process. against Mr. Reddy.
Mr. Upadhyay, however, had again written to the Attorney General to ask him to reconsider his decision.
In his response, Mr. Venugopal said that he should not only consider whether “particular statements or conduct will be prima facie contumacious”, but also whether it is in the “broader public interest” to bring such matters before the Supreme Court as a petition for contempt.
In this case, the letter to the Chief Justice with alleged statements comprising contempt was later released to the media, he wrote. But the letter was not marked as confidential, so it cannot be described as a “private letter” and was already being reported by the press.
“Therefore, there is no reason for me to change my mind.”
.
