On Monday, the Telangana High Court has pulled up a Retired Judge for levelling false and ferocious charges against a sitting High Court Judge.
The Judge of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, Justice P Swaroop Reddy had leveled allegations against Justice MS Ramachandra Rao, a sitting Judge of the Telangana High Court.
Justice Swaroop Reddy, who is Chairman of the Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (TAFRC), had sought the recusal of Justice Rao from hearing a batch of petitions assailing a Govt order which fixed the fees for PG Medical Courses on the recommendations made by the TAFRC in the State.
He laid various grounds such as of prejudice against the people, the state, the Chief Minister of Telangana, and the TAFRC. Moreover he contended that Justice Reddy's roster doesn't match with the subject matter of the writ petitions.
The petitions on the fee hike were initially placed before a Single Judge who in turn transferred it to a Division Bench. In an administrative order, the Chief Justice of the High Court agreed that it was an 'urgent matter'. Thus, the petition was placed before the Bench comprising of Justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Justice K Lakshman, which was the only Division Bench hearing such cases during the lockdown period.
When the matter came up for hearing, the Court sought a detailed reasoning from TAFRC as to why a hike between 118% to 154% in the fees was recommended by it and asked the Committee to respond in a day.
The state contended that the matter wasn't of urgent nature. However, the Court proceeded to treat it as urgent in view of the administrative order passed by the Chief Justice.
After this, a memo was submitted by TAFRC Chairman P Swaroop Reddy, in which he sought the recusal of Justice Rao for allegedly expressing views and making comments prejudicial against the people of Telangana.
Justice Reddy mentioned in the memo that he met with Justice Rao at a dinner party hosted by a former Judge where Justice Rao 'made criticism of Telangana people, its Chief Minister and the state and also a sitting judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court."
Justice Reddy further mentioned in the petition that at an earlier instance, a contempt notice was issued to him in his capacity as TAFRC Chairman by Justice Rao. However, no further development took place on this front.
Justice Reddy went onto add that in previous cases before the Court where TAFRC was involved, Justice Rao made 'unwarranted comments' against the TAFRC and the Govt, and passed orders against the State.
The Division Bench however recused from hearing the matter owing to the matter being vitiated by Justice Reddy's allegations.
The Bench stated:
The Court has refrained from initiating contempt proceedings against Justice Reddy and rejected every allegation made in the memo written by Former Judge, Justice P Swaroop Reddy.
The Bench in regard to the question of Justice Rao passing orders against the State and the TAFRC in the past, it remarked that those orders were subsequently upheld by benches of higher strength, showing that Justice Rao's orders weren't prejudicial but reasoned judicial orders.
The Court further mentioned that Justice Reddy missed on the fact that the contempt case initiated against him in his capacity as TAFRC Chairman stood closed more than two years ago in his memo.
The Court termed the 'Dinner Party' mentioned by Justice Reddy as a 'figment of imagination'.
The Court stated:
With reference to orders passed by Justice Rao in the past mentioned in the TAFRC Chairman's memo, the Court said that the same is 'highly improper'.
The Court opined that the judicial orders were passed by the Judge in discharge of his constitutional duties to decide disputes and in this process 'sometimes orders are required to be passed, both against in favour of parties to a lis.'
It pointed out that there have been orders passed by Justice Rao in favour of the Government also.
It said:
The Court strongly refuted the alleged bias against the people and the State of Telangana, and stated that both Judges on the Bench are persons born and raised in Telangana and have lived in the region for over 50 years
The Court also opined that the Retired Judge has used 'unbecoming' word in his memo that go beyond all levels of propriety.
It cited the Supreme Court's recent judgment in the case of In Re: Vijay Kurle and Ors, and stated that the memo by the TAFRC Chairman falls in the category of interference of administration of justice and prima facie amounts to criminal contempt.
The Court remarked:
These allegations can be viewed as an attempt at bench hunting, the Court added.
The Court though refrained from initiating contempt proceedings against Justice Reddy, expressing their confidence in the people and Lawyers of the State to know of the credibility of the two Judges.
The order has been passed by Justice M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO and Justice K.LAKSHMAN.
Read Order Here:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
