On Thursday, the Center notified the appointment of the President of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari, as President of the Sikkim High Court, and the President of the Sikkim High Court, Arup Kumar Goswami, as President of the Andhra Pradesh High Court .
Although these two appointments were the result of recommendations from the Supreme Court’s collegiate on December 14, they coincide with a controversial order approved Wednesday by Judge Rakesh Kumar of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, who retires on Thursday. The coincidence is still significant, since in his order, Judge Rakesh Kumar not only deplores the role of the Supreme Court collegiate in accepting the Executive, but also the incapacity of the judges of the superior judicial power, on the verge of his retirement, to resist the Executive’s insinuations to ensure post-retirement sinecures
Judge Rakesh Kumar’s order was related to his refusal to abstain from hearing a challenge to the state land auction. The plea of disqualification was presented by the state government, arguing that Judge Kumar could have disqualified himself due to the observations he allegedly made against the state government while hearing another case.
Although Judge Kumar had asked the state government attorney to come prepared to answer why the court was unable to reach a conclusion that the constitutional machinery in the state had failed, that was in another case, which was duly suspended by the Supreme Court. Judge Kumar, however, denied claiming in this case that there is a collapse of the constitutional machinery in the state, and that the magistracy would hand over the administration to the Center, as the state alleges through the additional general counsel, Sudhakar Reddy.
Judge Kumar concurred with the view that the state government’s false statement in this regard was derogatory and prima facie derogatory, and ordered the superior court registry to issue a notice of good cause to the state government for it. Judge Kumar also ordered the secretary general of the superior court to initiate criminal proceedings against Reddy for perjury.
“Judiciary under attack by people in power”
Opinions may differ on whether Judge Kumar should have responded the way he did, beyond offering reasons for refusing to recuse, as the state government did in a given case. As Reddy claimed that the state government’s request for disqualification was based on the media reporting the judge’s observations while listening to the case, threatening him with contempt proceedings and criminal prosecution for perjury may seem like a disproportionate response from the court.
However, Judge Kumar’s remarks, which seem unrelated to the facts of the case before him, must be understood in the context of his impending retirement and his sense of powerlessness to defend the majesty of the court. As he mentions, “Today, a very disturbing trend has developed in our system. If one is influential, powerful, that is, both in money and in muscle, he feels that he is having all the privileges of doing anything according to his convenience and at the risk of the system or the poor citizen ”.
Referring to the suspension of the Supreme Court order asking why the higher court was unable to reach a conclusion that the constitutional machinery has failed in the state, Justice Kumar observed that an adverse inference could be made against the acts / excesses of the police in the state. .
Judge Kumar referred to the recommendation of the state government to abolish the legislative council in the state only because he did not agree with the decision of the assembly to establish three capitals and its action against the state commissioner of elections, because it was not proceeding according to your wishes. Judge Kumar alleged that the state police practically indulged in a practice to protect defendants in the registered FIRs following the complaints from the higher court record.
Justice Kumar expressed his fear that state bureaucrats have been emboldened after the “apparent success of the state prime minister” in sending a letter to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) SA Bobde and making it public. In his letter, Prime Minister Jaganmohan Reddy made serious accusations against Supreme Court Justice NV Ramana, Andhra Pradesh Chief Justice and several acting Supreme Court justices.
Judge Kumar noted that the prime minister was charged in more than 30 cases, of which the Central Bureau of Investigation is investigating at least 10 cases. “In those cases, where charges have been filed a long time ago, it is alleged that he took several million rupees as a bribe and committed serious crimes under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and other crimes,” it noted. Judge Kumar.
“Surprisingly, although the cases are pending from 2011 onwards, to date, none of the cases have been charged. Isn’t it a mockery of the system? ” I ask.
Judge Kumar also questioned the CJI’s mysterious silence on the letter the prime minister sent him, saying that “we do not know whether or not he has taken any contempt proceedings for such action; But, it is a fact that the recommendation was made on December 14, 2020 by the Supreme Court college for the transfer / appointment of Chief Judges, which includes the transfer of the Chief Justice of AP to the Sikkim High Court and the Transfer of the President Judge from the Telangana High Court to the Uttarakhand High Court ”.
A disturbing trend?
After noting the apparent link between these two events, Judge Kumar observed: “Whether by this act of unceremoniously sending a letter to the CJI, the Prime Minister of Andhra Pradesh will get final relief or not, but the fact is that he achieved gain an undue advantage at this time. “
Judge Kumar inferred that due to these transfers, naturally, pending cases against the prime minister could be delayed and the follow-up by the Supreme Court could hamper for the time being.
“Similarly, with the transfer of the Chief Justice of the PA, the Andhra Pradesh government will surely gain an undue advantage,” he added. Justice Kumar underscored the need for transparency in the transfer of superior court judges or their presiding magistrates, saying that “after all, they also hold constitutional positions as members of the Supreme Court College.”
Many may question the ownership of Judge Kumar by giving details of the CBI and Directorate of Enforcement (ED) cases in which the Prime Minister is a defendant, and the other cases in which he is alleged to have committed crimes under the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, he said there are 11 CBI cases, six ED cases and 18 IPC cases against the prime minister. Of these in six or seven cases, he said, the state police filed a closure report, stating that they were false or a mistake of fact.
He even alleged that the director general of the state police is operating according to the government’s dictates, and not in defense of the rule of law. He stated that he was forced to record these facts because his impartiality was questioned by the State on the eve of his retirement.
Directing his ire at post-retirement sinecures for judges as the reason the judiciary is under a cloud, he said: “If we begin to restrict our expectations of reassignment / re-employment for at least a period of one year after retirement, I do not believe that any political party, not even the party in power, can undermine the independence of the judiciary and we can be in a position to defend the majesty of the law without being influenced by anyone.
Judge Kumar concluded that those in power in the state now seek to attack the Supreme Court, having succeeded in attacking other institutions such as the legislative council, the state electoral commission and the high court.
Given the strong order issued by Judge Kumar, it may be withdrawn or overturned to avoid any embarrassment to the Supreme Court. But the accusations and innuendo made by Judge Kumar in his latest order may help unravel the shady deals being made behind the curtain to solve the state’s gang warfare, with repercussions in New Delhi.
.
