Disqualification row: SC unhappy over Telangana CM's statement on bye-elections
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed its displeasure over Telangana Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy's statement in the assembly that there would be no bye-elections, and said he was expected to exercise "some degree of restraint".
"Did we commit a mistake by letting him go at that time and not taking an action for contempt?" a bench of Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih asked.
The top court was perhaps referring to a separate matter in which it had last year disapproved of Reddy's comments on the top court granting bail to rival BRS leader K Kavitha in cases linked to the alleged Delhi excise policy scam.
The apex court's observations came during the arguments on the pleas raising the issue of alleged delay by the Telangana Assembly speaker in deciding on petitions seeking disqualification of 10 BRS MLAs who had defected to the Congress.
The bench reserved its verdict in the matter.
During the arguments, the issue over Reddy's recent statement in the assembly cropped up before the bench.
"Mr Singhvi, having experience of earlier occasion, was the chief minister not expected to at least exercise some degree of restraint?" Justice Gavai asked senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, who was appearing for the assembly speaker.
Justice Gavai said the court was not bothered about statements of politicians.
"We exercise self-restraint. We respect the other two wings of the democracy. Same is expected of the other two wings also," he said.
Senior advocate C A Sundaram, representing the petitioner and BRS leader Padi Kaushik Reddy, referred to the transcripts of the chief minister's statement, calling it shocking.
A BRS MLA, the counsel said, had said in the assembly that this should not be raked up as the matter was pending before the apex court but the chief minister still made the statement.
Sundaram quoted the chief minister's statement as saying, "Mr speaker, I am telling on your behalf to everyone present in the assembly that they need not worry about any bye-elections in future. No Bye-elections will come".
Sundaram said when the chief minister made the statement, the speaker did not say anything.
During the hearing, the bench asked what would be the "reasonable period" for a speaker to decide on the disqualification petitions.
It asked whether such applications for disqualification "should be permitted to die its natural death and the Tenth Schedule be thrown in the dustbin?".
The Tenth Schedule of the Constitution deals with provisions on disqualification on the ground of defection.
Sundaram requested the bench to put a time limit for deciding the disqualification petitions, referring to it as an "extraordinary situation".
Reddy had allegedly said in the assembly on March 26 that there would be no bye-elections even if BRS members switched sides.
"If this is said on the floor of the house, your chief minister is making a mockery of the Tenth Schedule," the bench said on April 2.
The apex court had also asked the speaker why he took about 10 months to issue notices on the petitions for the disqualification of BRS MLAs who defected to the Congress.
While one of the pleas in the apex court has challenged the November 2024 order of the Telangana High Court in a matter concerning petitions seeking the disqualification of three BRS MLAs, another petition relates to the remaining seven legislators who defected.
A division bench of the high court in November last year said the Assembly speaker must decide the disqualification petitions against the three MLAs within a "reasonable time".
The division bench's verdict came on the appeals against the September 9, 2024, order of a single judge.
The single judge had directed the secretary of the Telangana Assembly to place the petition seeking the disqualifications before the speaker for fixing a schedule of hearing within four weeks.
On March 4, the apex court sought responses from the Telangana government and others on the pleas, saying a timely decision was the key and there could not be a case of "operation successful but patient is dead".
It had also sought the responses of MLAs Danam Nagender, Venkata Rao Tellam and Kadiyam Srihari in the matter.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
BCI urges CJI to take action against Andhra HC judge for sending young lawyer to 24-hour custody
New Delhi (PTI): The Bar Council of India on Wednesday sought the urgent intervention of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant following a "deeply disturbing" incident where a judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reportedly sent a young advocate to
24-hour judicial custody over a procedural lapse.
The Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairperson and senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, in a formal representation, termed the conduct of Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao "grossly inappropriate" and "damaging to the confidence of the Bar".
“I most respectfully request your Lordship to kindly take immediate institutional cognizance of the matter and call for the video recording of the proceedings, the order passed, and the surrounding circumstances.
“I further request that appropriate administrative action may kindly be considered, including withdrawal of judicial work from the learned Judge pending review, his immediate transfer to some far off High Court, and his nomination for appropriate judicial training/orientation on court management, judicial temperament, Bar-Bench relations, and proportional exercise of contempt/judicial authority,” Mishra wrote.
This representation is made to preserve the “dignity, moral authority and public confidence of the judiciary”, he said, adding, “Judges command the highest respect not by fear, but by fairness, patience, restraint and constitutional humility”.
The communication urged the CJI to intervene at the earliest to ensure that the faith of Bar, particularly young advocates, in the protective and corrective role of the judiciary is restored.
The controversy stems from proceedings on May 5.
According to the BCI, a video circulating online shows Justice Rao rebuking a young advocate who was unable to produce a specific order copy during a hearing.
The letter said that despite the advocate "repeatedly seeking pardon and mercy" and claiming he was in physical pain, the judge remained "unmoved".
The judge allegedly told the lawyer, "now you will learn," and mocked his experience before directing the Registrar and police personnel to take him into custody for 24 hours.
The BCI chairperson said that the judge’s actions lacked proportionality and fairness.
"The dignity of the court is not enhanced when a lawyer is made to beg for grace in open court and is still sent to custody for a procedural lapse," the letter said.
"A young lawyer... is an officer of the Court, still learning, still growing, and entitled to correction without humiliation," it added.
The bar body said that such actions create a "chilling effect" on the legal fraternity, particularly among junior members, and undermine the mutual respect required between the Bench and the Bar.
