New Delhi: The ongoing controversy over Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister YS Jaganmohan Reddy’s letter to Chief Justice of India SA Bobde, bringing serious charges against Supreme Court Justice NV Ramana, has taken a curious turn with a new special license petition filed in high court by a chief justice of Andhra Pradesh high court, seeking to quash an investigation into their informal telephone conversation.
Judge V. Eswaraiah, who became a judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 1999, retired as acting Chief Justice in 2013. In September of that year, the then UPA government in the Center appointed him president. of the National Commission for the Backward Classes (NCBC) for a period of three years. He has been at the forefront of the backward class movement in the state ever since. Backward classes, scheduled caste, scheduled tribe, and minority student federation is one such endeavor, which received its blessings. He is also a prominent critic of the former prime minister, N. Chandrababu Naidu, who, according to him, had spoiled the chances that two defenders of the backward class and two defenders of the programmed castes were appointed judges of the high court.
In August 2017, Judge J. Chelameswar noted that Judge Ramana’s letter to the CJI on why these proposed appointments were without merit appeared identical to the letter Naidu wrote to the Union’s Minister of Law, Ravi Shankar Prasad.
In July, the backward classes, the scheduled caste, the scheduled tribe, and the minority student federation filed a written petition in the high court seeking an investigation into the untimely death of the secretary general (in charge) of the high court, B. Rajasekhar, and another employee due to COVID-19, and 30 more employees who tested positive for it. While Rajasekhar belonged to the backward classes, the other employee belonged to a programmed tribe.
The Federation alleged that on May 8 of this year, three judges took the oath in a small closed room with air conditioning full of defenders, VIPs, family members and all the judges on the platform, assistants behind their backs, without even wearing their clothes. masks or maintain social distancing. The secretary general, the petition alleged, had to work until 3 am to organize the swearing-in ceremony. After the ceremony, the judges, staff and several defenders had tea in the judges’ lounge, the petition alleged, and posed for photographs without wearing masks or maintaining social distance rules.
The petition alleges that Rajasekhar was subjected to tremendous labor pressure from Chief Justice JK Maheshwari. Despite his illness, Rajasekhar had to go to court to finalize the transfers of judicial officials, which could have been postponed in view of his illness, it is further alleged. He collapsed in court on June 24 and died while on his way to the hospital.
The superior court record, in its answering affidavit in the case, denied the allegations. In paragraph 13 of the affidavit, the general secretary of the higher court made accusations against the higher court itself, in which she criticized the recommendation of September 4, 2019 of her then interim President of the Supreme Court supporting the Jagan government’s decision to appoint Judge Eswaraiah chairman of the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Monitoring and Regulatory Commission despite the fact that the Supreme Court college had already recommended the appointment of a regular president of the superior court.
The same paragraph accuses Judge Eswaraiah of defaming the high court and wanting to support the state government under the cover of the BC Association, and blames the state government for “not happily accepting the high court verdicts handed down in various cases against him” .
The higher court subsequently agreed to withdraw this paragraph.
Andhra HC ordered the telephone conversation to be investigated
During the processing of this petition, a suspended municipal magistrate of the Andhra Pradesh district, S. Ramakrishna, submitted a request to intervene in which he attached a recording of a private conversation between Judge Eswaraiah and himself. The conversation revolved around many things, including the petition pending in the high court seeking an investigation into Rajasekhar’s death, as well as the “misconduct” of a sitting Supreme Court justice. The acting judge, the leaked conversation makes clear, is Judge Ramana.
Judge Eswaraiah’s complaint is that the high court, without even notifying him, proceeded to order an investigation into the conversation on the grounds that it revealed a “conspiracy” to defame the Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh and the acting Supreme Court judge. . Court, and therefore, interpreted it as a plot against the Judiciary. He also alleged that Ramakrishna defamed him by leaking the conversation.
Judge Eswaraiah maintains that he had spoken publicly about Judge Ramana’s so-called “misconduct” and his “link” with the former Naidu-led state government. Second, the “misconduct” was the subject of an investigation by the cabinet subcommittee on questionable property transactions for illicit profit. This “conspiracy”, reveals Judge Eswaraiah, is the subject of a First Informational Report, which names Dammalapati Srinivas, former additional general counsel (who was later appointed general counsel) and 12 other defendants, including two daughters of Judge Ramana.
Judge Eswaraiah has therefore held that it is legitimate for him to seek further information about the controversy, which is now in the public domain, from “anyone who may have knowledge of it.”
“Calling such a conversation a kind of criminal conspiracy to destabilize the judiciary that needs an investigation is totally unjustified,” he said. The constitution of such an investigative committee, headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice RV Raveendran, without prior notice and without allowing the intervention of the suspended magistrate (with whom Judge Eswaraiah had the telephone conversation, which was leaked) was contrary to nature. justice, has been submitted.
A dubious precedent cited by a higher court
Interestingly, the higher court, in its order establishing the investigation into the leaked conversation, has relied as precedent on the Supreme Court establishing a similar commission (headed by Justice AK Patnaik) to unravel the “broader conspiracy” behind accusations of sexual harassment. made by an employee of the Supreme Court against the then Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi.
Although this commission had presented its report, the Supreme Court decided not to disclose it to the public, nor to continue hearing the matter, despite a clear order from the court on the judicial side to the registrar to include it in the hearing. Therefore, citing this as precedent to suggest that it is also the solemn duty of the higher court to unravel the truth, exposes the hypocrisy behind the decision.
The Supreme Court had dismissed concerns, in establishing the Patnaik commission, that parallel investigations into allegations of sexual harassment against the sitting Chief Justice of India might not facilitate an independent investigation. As expected, the internal investigation committee headed by judges SA Bobde, Indira Banerjee and Indu Malhotra gave a clean fine to the president of the Supreme Court Gogoi, by dismissing the accusations against him, without sharing the report with the plaintiff. The reinstatement of the fired employee, who was the complainant in the case, showed that her allegations, despite the findings of the internal committee, may well be true.
In his petition, Justice Eswaraiah wants the Supreme Court to examine whether the higher court is justified in ordering an investigation into a recorded private conversation between two people on their mobile phones, even though the people are not parties to the proceedings before the superior court in a pending case, and the conversation has no relevance to him. It has also sought to know whether the higher court can order such an investigation based on the intervention of a third party when it is not even permitted.
Judge Eswaraiah has therefore requested a provisional stay of the August 13 high court order that led the investigation into the contents of the flash drive that leaked the conversation presented to the court in Ramakrishna’s application. The outcome of this case may have implications for how the CJI decides Jagan’s letter against Judge Ramana.
.
