Supreme Court Justice UU Lalit recused himself on Monday from hearing separate writ petitions seeking action against the Andhra Pradesh government and Chief Minister YS Jaganmohan Reddy for bringing “false, vague and political accusations” against the court judge. Supreme Court, Justice NV Ramana and other justices of the court.
The judge, who presides over a three-member bench, withdrew from the hearing of the case, explaining that he had represented, as a lawyer, some of the parties involved in the case. Justice Lalit is one of the few high-level attorneys to have been elevated directly to Supreme Court Justice in the court’s history.
“I have a hard time hearing this… I cannot deal with this matter. I have represented some of these parties as a lawyer, ”Judge Lalit addressed the petitioners.
The Court then recorded a short order, requesting the Chief Justice of India SA Bobde to list the case before an appropriate court.
The petitions concern a letter from Mr. Reddy addressed to the Chief Justice of India against the judges and the subsequent disclosure of its contents during a press conference on 10 October.
Recently, Attorney General KK Venugopal had refrained from giving legal consent to the grounds of contempt of court action against Mr. Reddy and his Senior Advisor Ajeya Kallam.
Read also | A constitutional pickle of the Andhra type
Mr. Venugopal said that it was up to the CJI, from whom it “seized the letter,” to make an appropriate decision. Supreme Court attorney Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, in his plea of contempt of Mr. Venugopal, asserted that the decision of a court headed by Justice Ramana on September 16, which ordered the prompt completion of pending criminal trials against politicians, he had prompted Mr. Reddy to write the letter. Reddy, the attorney said, had 31 criminal cases against him.
A petitioner himself, defender GS Mani, has accused Mr. Reddy of “abusing his official position”. A similar petition has also been filed by an NGO, the Anti Corruption Council of India Trust.
The third petition is from another lawyer, Sunil Kumar Singh, who has urged the high court to issue an order prohibiting Mr. Reddy from making public statements against the judiciary and holding press conferences to smear the judicial institution.
Editorial | Unpleasant show
The Constitution does not allow such deliberate attempts to publicly embarrass the judiciary.
“What is at stake is the confidence that the courts inspire in the public in a democracy … Discussions can go crazy in the media in a matter of hours or days and affect the image of the judiciary,” Singh said.
The correct place to bring charges against the higher judiciary is Parliament or the state Legislature and not press conferences, he has argued. The petition said that the constitutional immunity granted to the judiciary is to allow it to function without fear.
.
