Recently Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, wrote a letter dated 06.10.2020 to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, S. A. Bobde, alleging that some High Court judges are attempting to protect the interests of the major opposition party, Telugu Desam Party, in politically sensitive matters. For the first time in the republic’s history that a chief minister has formally accused a sitting member of the higher judiciary of political bias and even corruption. He further claims that the Supreme Court judge “has been influencing the sittings of the high court including the roster of a few Honourable Judges”.
By J. Gopikrishnan
Leaking of such letter to the media is clearly an attempt to threaten and intimidate the judiciary and has held the judiciary to ransom. It seems there are more insidious ways to intimidate the judiciary. It was a deliberate attempt to scandalize the judiciary. It is an attempt to overreach judiciary which needs to be dealt with utmost priority. His actions were highly contemptuous and an attempt at overawing the judiciary. The letter by Reddy and his subsequent press conference is a blatant attempt to shake the confidence of the public at large in the judiciary. The letter was released in public domain to “intimidate judicial proceedings” against Reddy.
It may be noted that Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy is himself a man of tainted image having number of investigation and cases pending against him in different Courts of law pertaining to money laundering, assault, criminal intimidation, defamation, mischief, criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, corruption, illegal gratification, rioting and criminal conspiracy etc. It may be noted that the offences are very serious in nature and specially when the person against whom the charges are leveled holds a high public post such as of a Chief Minister of a State. The dignity and the constitutionalism required to hold such high Office is clearly lacking in the conduct of the Chief Minister.
Reddy is playing an age-old strategy of being victimized, such strategy is often used in the political battlefield, however the same may not be applicable as against the judiciary. Unlike executive, judiciary is the weakest branch to have acted against the executive head of a State. The inherent framework of judiciary having multiple forms and appeals cut across all such claims. There is no doubt that the Chief Minister is accused in numerous cases and is presently out on bail. Since 2011 onwards, he has ensured that these cases do not proceed. It is also relevant to point out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s J. Ramana bench has asked the Chief Justices of High Courts to head Special Benches and immediately hear long-pending criminal cases against sitting and former legislators.
It is completely strange that even after the Supreme Court headed by Justice N V Ramana, had insisted to provide complete list of cases pending against all MPs and MLAs, State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh had failed to do so. Only after much insistence of the Court that such data was submitted. As per report submitted before the Hon’ble SC, it was observed that 17 cases against the Chief Minister, Shri Y. S. Jaganmohan Reddy are pending, without any substantial progress. Many of these cases are still at the stage of framing charges.
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s direction to the chief justices of high courts to adjudicate over 4,000 criminal cases pending against sitting and former lawmakers, the Telangana high court directed the CBI special court handling Jagan’s disproportionate assets cases to complete its work at the earliest.
The CBI had in 2012 filed charges against Reddy, accusing him of amassing more than Rs 1 lakh crore of wealth by misusing the office of his late father, Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy, who was then the CM of undivided AP. The Enforcement Directorate has attached properties to the tune of hundreds of crore of Jagan Reddy and his associates. In March 2013, the Enforcement Directorate has attached properties worth Rs. 863 crore allegedly belonging to YSR Congress party president Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy, industrialist Nimmagadda Prasad and their companies as proceeds of crime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. During the first exercise the ED had attached 1,775 crore worth of property while in June 2016, properties worth Rs 749 crore had been attached. The total value of the properties attached is Rs 2,524 crore. The properties that have been attached include Bharathi Cements, Sandur Power Project, 903-acre land in Guntur, Jagan’s Lotus Pond residence in Jubilee Hills, Sakshi Towers in Banjara Hills and land in Hakimpet. Shares and fixed deposits too have been seized by the ED. Apart from it, in July 2017, ED had attached assets worth over Rs 148 crore of Reddy in July for illegally allotting 11,804.78 acres of land to companies of Nimmagadda Prasad in Prakasam and Guntur districts of Andhra Pradesh and in January 2018, the ED has attached movable and immovable assets worth Rs 117.74 crore under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act of companies of I Syam Prasad Reddy, Indu Projects, Embassy Property Developments and Vasantha Projects in the the Indu-APHB case related to Y S Jaganmohan Reddy.
Reddy was arrested in May 2012 and released on bail 16 months later in September 2013.
As per the election affidavit, 2019 filed by Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy during the State Elections there are 31 criminal cases pending against him. It may also be noted that the movable assets held by him are worth whooping Rs. 339,89,43,352/- and that of his wife and children are more than Rs. 100 Cr. He has immobile properties of more than Rs. 35 Cr. and that of his wife are more than Rs. 31 Cr.
The details of the cases pending against Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy are as under:
1. Cases in which charges sheets have been filed and cognizance has been taken against him.
Sl No. FIR/Case No. Sections/offences Details
1. C.C.No. 33 of 2018
Judge Spl. Court For Trail of Cases Relating to Elected MPs and MLAs Vijayawada Cum VIII Addl. District and Session Judge Cum V Addl. Metropolitan Session Judge, Vijayawada Krishna District 499, 500, 501, 502, 34 IPC
2. ECIR No. 09/HZO/2011, Police Station Directorate of Enforcement Hyderabad
SC No. 2 of 2018
The Court of Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases Hyderabad Section 4 R/W Section 3 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act. 2002
3. ECIR No. 09/HZO/2011, Police Station Directorate of Enforcement Hyderabad
SC No. 1 of 2018
The Court of Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases Hyderabad Section 4 R/W Section 3 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act. 2002
4. ECIR No. 09/HZO/2011, Police Station Directorate of Enforcement Hyderabad
SC No. 2 of 2017
The Court of Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases Hyderabad Section 4 R/W Section 3 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act. 2002
5. ECIR No. 09/HZO/2011, Police Station Directorate of Enforcement Hyderabad
SC No. 2 of 2016
The Court of Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases Hyderabad Section 4 R/W Section 3 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act. 2002
6. ECIR No. 09/HZO/2011, Police Station Directorate of Enforcement Hyderabad
SC No. 106 of 2015, New Case No. SC No. 1 of 2016
The Court of Metropolitan Session Judge, Nampally Hyderabad, The Court of Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases Hyderabad Section 3, 4, & 8(5) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
7. FIR No. 146 of 2014, Police Station Kodada Police Station Nalgonda District Telangana
C.C.No. 377 of 2014
The Court of the Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate Kodad 188, 341 IPC r/w S. 30 of Police Act, 1861
8. R.C. No. 19(A) of 2011, CBI/HYD Police Station CBI ACB Hyderabad
C.C. No. 26 of 2014 120B, 420, 409 IPC r/w
Sec 11, 13(2) R/W 13 (1))C) & (D) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988
9. R.C. No. 19(A) of 2011, CBI/HYD Police Station CBI, ACB, Hyderabad
C.C. No. 28 of 2013
The Court of Honorable Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases Hyderabad 120B, 420, 468, 471 IPC r/w Sec. 9 of Prevention of Corruption Act., 1988
10. R.C. 19(A) of 2011, CBI/HYD Police Station CBI, ACB, Hyderabad
C.C. No. 27 of 2013
The Court of Honorable Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases Hyderabad 120B, 420 IPC r/w Sec. 9 of Prevention of Corruption Act., 1988
11. R.C. 19(A) of 2011, CBI/HYD Police Station CBI, ACB, Hyderabad
C.C. No. 26 of 2013
The Court of Honorable Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases Hyderabad 120B, 420 IPC r/w Sec. 9 of Prevention of Corruption Act., 1988
12. R.C. 19(A) of 2011, CBI/HYD Police Station CBI, ACB, Hyderabad
C.C. No. 25 of 2013
The Court of Honorable Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases Hyderabad 120B, 420, 107 IPC r/w 13(2) R/W 13(1)(D) Prevention of Corruption Act.
13. R.C. 19(A) of 2011, CBI/HYD Police Station CBI, ACB, Hyderabad
C.C. No. 24 of 2013
The Court of Honorable Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases Hyderabad 120B, 420, 107 IPC r/w Sec. 9 & 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act., 1988
14. R.C. 19(A) of 2011, CBI/HYD Police Station CBI, ACB, Hyderabad
C.C. No. 12 of 2013
The Court of Honorable Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases Hyderabad 120B, 420, 107 IPC r/w Sec. 9 of Prevention of Corruption Act., 1988
15. R.C. No. 19(A) of 2011 – CBI/HYD Police Station CBI, ACB, Hyderabad
C.C. No. 14 of 2012
The Court of Honorable Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases Hyderabad 120B, 420, 409 IPC r/w Sec. 9 & 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act. Arrested in May 2012 and released on bail in September 2013. The allegations of illegal wealth is to the tune of one lakh crore.
16. R.C. No. 19(A) of 2011 – CBI/HYD Police Station CBI, ACB, Hyderabad
C.C. No. 10 of 2012
The Court of Honorable Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases Hyderabad 120B, 420, 471 IPC r/w Sec. 9 & 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act.
17. R.C. No. 19(A) of 2011 – CBI/HYD Police Station CBI, ACB, Hyderabad
C.C. No. 9 of 2012
The Court of Honorable Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases Hyderabad 120B, 420, 471 IPC
18. R.C. No. 19(A) of 2011 – CBI/HYD Police Station CBI, ACB, Hyderabad
C.C. No. 8 of 2012
The Court of Honorable Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases Hyderabad 120B, 420 IPC r/w Section 12 R/W 11 of Prevention of Corruption Act.
19. ECIR No.09/HZO/2011 Police Station Directorate of Enforcement Hyderabad
SC No.92/2016
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally Hyderabad Section 3 & 4 & 8(5) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
2. Cases against him where charge sheet is yet to be filed or cognizance is yet to be taken:
Sl No. FIR No. Sections Details
1. FIR No:57/2017, Police Station Nandigama Krishna District AP 353, 506, 34 IPC No cognizance taken yet.
2. FIR No. 64/2016, Police Station Mangalagiri (R) Guntur Urban 425, 427, 505(ii), 24 IPC No cognizance taken yet.
3. FIR No. 63/2016, Police Station Mangalagiri (R) Guntur Urban 425, 427, 505(ii), 24 IPC No cognizance taken yet.
4. FIR No. 62/2016, Police Station Mangalagiri (R) Guntur Urban 425, 427, 505(ii), 24 IPC No cognizance taken yet.
5. FIR No. 61/2016, Police Station Mangalagiri (R) Guntur Urban 425, 427, 505(ii), 24 IPC No cognizance taken yet.
6. FIR No. 60/2016, Police Station Mangalagiri (R) Guntur Urban 425, 427, 505(ii), 24 IPC No cognizance taken yet.
7. FIR No. 59/2016, Police Station Mangalagiri (R) Guntur Urban 425, 427, 505(ii), 24 IPC No cognizance taken yet.
8. FIR No. 58/2016, Police Station Mangalagiri (R) Guntur Urban 425, 427, 505(ii), 24 IPC No cognizance taken yet.
9. FIR No. 45/2016, Police Station Ponnur Rural Guntur 500, 501 IPC No cognizance taken yet.
10. FIR No. 861/2013, Police Station Saroor Nagar Cyberabad Hyderabad
The Court of Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases Hyderabad. Section 3 of Prevention of Insults to Honour Act., 1971, No cognizance taken yet.
11. FIR No. 137/2011, Police Station Pulivendula YSR District 147, 148, 114, 186, 188, 440, 286, 283, 353, 341, 290, 342, 427, 506 IPC r/w Section 7(1) of Criminal Law Amendment Act., 1932 & Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. 1984, Charge Sheet not filed.
12. ECIR No. 09/HZO/2011, Police Station Directorate of Enforcement Hyderabad
The Court of Honorable Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases Hyderabad 120B, 420, 409, 477 IPC r/w Section 13(2) Read with Section 13(1)(C)&(D) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988 with Section 4 Read with Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. 2002. Charge Sheet yet to be filed.
Recently the CBI Court has also ordered Reddy to appear before the Court every week. It was seen that more than 6 years have lapsed from filing of charge sheets, however, the trial is yet to start which clearly indicates that the accused has been able to procrastinate the proceedings on one pretext or other. Since the trial against Jagan is on the verge of completion before the special CBI court in Hyderabad, the timing of the letter suggests there is more to it than meets the eye. If he is convicted, he can be disqualified from contesting elections for a period of 6 years from the date when the actual sentence ends, thereby meaning that his political career may be put to an end which has resulted in the present unprecedented situation.
We are reminded of former Karnataka Minister Gali Janardhan Reddy, prime accused in illegal mining scam, who was caught paying of the trail court judge for favorable orders. As the judges in Andhra Pradesh are not pliable to his whims and fancies, the Chief Minister has realized that intimidation was the only resort to keep his ever sinking ship afloat. Such attempts amounts to breach independence of judiciary by trying to browbeat them to a state of genuflection is unpardonable treason.
His letter is double edged, that if orders are passed as desired in his favour he would stand vindicated or else he can go the public that Supreme Court is also against him. Further Reddy had “orchestrated attacks” on the judiciary through the Assembly Speaker, ministers and legislators in his government, so as to lower public confidence in the judicial institution. His letter is just another form of frontal attack, as his earlier clandestine efforts to malign the judges through social media has been ordered to be investigated by CBI. It is relevant to observe some of social media posts by Chief Minister’s men:
Chendu Reddy’s tweet that ‘All judges shall be cut into pieces,’ and ‘All judges shall be kept in a room and a corona-positive patient should be left with them.’
Such attempts foretell a disastrous future wherein Court is rendered fragile by certain elements, who are bent upon destroying this democracy for their personal vendetta. As Justice O’Connor has warned, “in these challenging and difficult times, we must recommit ourselves to maintaining the independent judiciary that the Framers sought to establish.” Because of the inextricable link between independent judges, the rule of law, and democracy, threats to judicial independence necessarily threaten our democratic system. If we do not allow judges to function independently then we are digging graves for our beloved democracy!
The author is a Senior Journalist
Comments are closed.