The Supreme Court’s decision to “dismiss” Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy’s allegations against its judge Justice N V Ramana, is a half-baked decision.
The decision gave a clean chit to the judge and dismissed the charges made against the judge. But, it was silent on Jagan Mohan Reddy who made the “dismissible” allegations.
Giving clean chit to someone or clearing charges against someone is important. At the same time, the courts cannot be silent on the one who made baseless allegations or accusations as those allegations and accusations amount to defamation. And the defamation cases are to be heard by the same court.
The Supreme Court had maintained absolute silence for almost six months on Jagan Mohan Reddy’s letter.
Shockingly, the apex court is maintaining absolute secrecy in its so called In-House procedure, through which it dismissed the complaints and cleared the judge.
It is a welcome decision to follow the set tradition of appointing the senior most judge as chief justice. Thus Justice N V Ramana’s elevation is justified.
But, the question is what about the person who made such baseless allegations against such a senior most judge, who will be occupying the highest post of the country in judiciary? Can he go unpunished?
The Supreme Court has the right to justify its decision and keep the entire In-House procedure secret as it desires.
But is it not its responsibility to punish the one who caused damage to the country’s judiciary and to the country’s chief justice-in waiting?!
Is it not a half-baked decision to clear allegations against the judge and ignore the one who made such allegations?
These are the common man’s questions that the Supreme Court has to answer.
