A statement from Supreme Court on Wednesday stating that the complaint made by Andhra Pradesh chief minister Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy on October 6 stands dismissed evoked sharp reaction from legal experts.
The Supreme Court issued a crisp two-sentence statement which read: “A complaint dated October 6, 2020, sent by the CM of Andhra Pradesh to the Supreme Court was dealt with under the in-house procedure and the same... stands dismissed. ...All the matters dealt with under the in-house procedure being strictly confidential in nature are not liable to be made public.”
The reaction is not about the dismissal of Jagan’s complaint, but about the way the Supreme Court described the in-house procedure as strictly confidential and that all the matters dealt with during the in-house procedure are not liable to be made public.
Noted Supreme Court lawyer and legal expert Prashant Bhushan expressed surprise over the statement from the apex court: “SC dismisses Andhra CM's Complaint Against Justice Ramana After Confidential In-House Enquiry? Nobody should know who was in the in-house inquiry; what was examined & what the report says!” he tweeted.
Prashant Bhushan described it as “a sealed cover within a sealed cover and criticised that nobody was following transparency.
Reports from New Delhi indicated that the in-house inquiry into the complaint made by Jagan was conducted by Chief Justice of India S A Bobde and two other senior judges and after an elaborate in-house inquiry found the allegations “baseless, frivolous, false, motivated and an attempt to browbeat the judiciary.”
The committee examined the charges which were two-fold — one, that Justice Ramana’s two daughters had bought land in Amaravati, the proposed capital of Andhra Pradesh after bifurcation, for a song even before the notification choosing Amaravati as the capital was issued; and two, that Justice Ramana had a stranglehold over the state judiciary which was passing adverse orders against the YSRCP government.
The two judges gave lengthy written opinions on the complaint and said the charges were levelled to “browbeat the judge” who was heading a bench which had passed orders to expedite the snail-paced criminal trials against powerful politicians.
Prashant Bhushan said unless the details of the in-house inquiry are revealed, there would be no transparency in the case.
