Lawyer Basic KK Venugopal has declined to rethink his refusal to provoke contempt proceedings in opposition to Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Jagan Mohan Reddy for a second time relating to his allegations in opposition to a Supreme Court docket choose.
Mr Venugopal had refused permission to Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay on November 2 to provoke contempt proceedings within the matter. The Lawyer Basic, nevertheless, stated his refusal to provide consent can not cease Mr Upadhyay from approaching the court docket, which might suo motu provoke contempt proceedings in opposition to the Chief Minister.
On October 6, Mr Reddy had written to Chief Justice of India SA Bobde about Justice NV Ramana, a senior choose of the Supreme Court docket, claiming that he was working in opposition to the elected authorities of the state after his orders to expedite pending prosecution in opposition to legislators from the Chief Minister’s YSR Congress.
Mr Reddy claimed that the senior choose was appearing on behalf of his opposition, former Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu’s Telugu Desam Occasion. He additionally accused Justice Ramana of colluding with Excessive Court docket judges and stated they have been appearing at his behest.
Mr Upadhyay, the petitioner within the case through which Justice Ramana’s orders got here, had referred to as for contempt proceedings in opposition to the Chief Minister.
Mr Venugopal had stated prima facie timing of the Chief Minister’s letter to the Chief Justice of India, and its being made public, was suspect within the backdrop of Justice Ramana’s orders in September on plea to hurry up the trials in opposition to sitting and former lawmakers, together with Jagan Mohan Reddy.
“Because the letter was addressed on to the Chief Justice of India, the CJI is seized of the case and it will not be applicable for me to cope with it,” the Lawyer Basic stated final Monday, explaining why he wouldn’t provoke contempt proceedings in opposition to Mr Reddy.
Mr Upadhyay, nevertheless, had written once more to the Lawyer Basic, asking him to rethink his choice.
In his response, Mr Venugopal stated not solely is he required to contemplate whether or not “explicit statements or conduct will likely be prima facie contumacious” but in addition whether or not it’s in “bigger public curiosity” to put such issues earlier than the Supreme Court docket as a contempt petition.
On this case, the letter to the Chief Justice with alleged statements that comprise contempt have been later launched to the media, he wrote. However the letter was not marked confidential and so can’t be described as a “personal missive” and was already being reported by the press.
“Therefore there is no such thing as a purpose for me to alter my thoughts,” he added.