Attorney General Refuses to Reconsider Denial of Consent Informs BJP Leader SC Open to Initiate Suo motu Contempt Case Against AP CM Jagan
(Judicial Quest News Network)
Attorney General KK Venugopal has refused to accede to a request for reconsideration of his decision declining consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Andhra Chief Minister Y S Jaganmohan Reddy and State advisor Ajeya Kallam for “Contumacious Letter” letter.
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay had urged the AG KK Venugopal to grant permission to initiate sou motu contempt proceedings.
Ap Chief Minister has written a letter to CJI SA Bobde alleging the unwanted assimilation of Justice NV Ramna in the AP High Court as well as alleged that his (NV Ramna) Daughters were involved in multi crores land purchase scam in Amravati.
Ashwini Kumar had stated in his letter that “Your letter makes it clear that you find the conduct of both these persons prima facie contumacious. However, my request has been declined on the ground that the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India is seized of the matter. I am afraid that this latter aspect may require reconsideration for the following reasons.”
1. The letter of Sh. Reddy to the Chief Justice was dated 6.10.2020 but sent to the CJI on 08.10.2020. This was a private missive with scurrilous contents. At this stage, it was left to the CJI alone to determine whether it constituted contempt. But, once Sh. Kallam on Sh. Reddy’s behalf called a press conference, read out a separate statement and released the letter to the media and public on 10.10.2020, it ceased to be a private matter, and there was also an additional actor and an additional statement made. Now, the public have been given the impression that Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are involved in influencing cases, and this you have opined is contumacious, albeit prima facie. These subsequent facts are not a part of the complaint pending with the Chief Justice.
It was further submitted that
2. You may also note that the Chief Justice is seized of a complaint BY Sh. Jagan Mohan Reddy against the judiciary, NOT a complaint of contempt AGAINST him and his Advisor. It is unclear how the fact that Sh. Reddy’s complaint pending with the Chief Justice can preclude my right to initiate criminal contempt against him and Sh. Kallam. Even if such were the case, consent could be granted by you, and my petition would be tagged for hearing.
Citing the contents of a book co-authored by AG KK Venugopal and published by Supreme Court Ashwini Kumar submitted that
3. I wish to draw your attention to the Restatement on Contempt of Court (2011) published by the Supreme Court of India which has been co-authored by you, in which, in the context of Section 15, it has been stated that “Giving or refusing consent is a statutory function” [p.99]. As it is a statutory function, I would humbly submit that the import of Section 15 is only to have the judgment of the highest Law Officer precede a motion being made by any person to initiate criminal contempt proceedings through application of mind to the content of the alleged contempt. Once a conclusion is drawn that the contempt is prima facie made out, it would be necessary for the consent to follow. For example, it would not be appropriate for me to be told to make my motion to the Advocate General of Andhra Pradesh just as it would not be relevant that the Chief Justice is a recipient on the administrative side of a private communication.
Sir, I humbly request you to peruse these points (particularly the fact that the question of contempt is not pending anywhere else) and kindly reconsider the granting of consent to my request. This is an issue of great importance at a time when our judiciary continues to be besieged by attacks, and a strong stand needs to be taken by those of us who are a part of the institution.
The AG while replying to Mr. Ashwini’s letter stated that “I have carefully considered the grounds upon which you seek a reconsideration. As Attorney General, I am required to exercise statutorily conferred discretion not in regard to the discrimination of whether particular statement or conduct would prima facie contumacious, but also as to whether it would be in the larger public interest for such of those matters that are found to be contumacious to be placed before the Supreme Court of India by way of a contempt petition.
The AG Has further stated in his letter that “As I had stated in my letter dated 2.11.2020, the allegedly contumacious statements were contained in a letter written directly to the Chief Justice of India. It is no doubt true that the said letter was released subsequently to the press, as I myself had pointed out in my letter to you. I have myself watched the video of the press conference and I find that nothing extra was said other than what was already there in the letter which was addressed to the Chlef Justice. The letter released to the press and enclosed in your original request for consent was therefore the subject matter of the contempt. Nowhere, is the letter, copy of which has been enclosed by you, marled confidential. In other words, the letter cannot be described as a private missive. It was widely being reposed by the press. Hence there is no reason for me to change my mind.”
Exercising His Right
However, Mr. Venugopal said his refusal did not stop Mr. Ashwini Kumar from exercising his “Right” to take the matter directly to the judges for suo motu action.
You may exercise this right either by way of information placed on the administrative side or by bringing it to the attention of the Court during the hearing of W.P. (C) 699/2016 where you are already the petitioner in person, he wrote.
Mr. Ashwini Kumar is petitioner-in person in a case seeking quick disposal of criminal cases against legislators across the country.
He has alleged that Justice Ramana’s order on September 16 to try these cases expeditiously may have promoted Mr. Reddy to write the letter to CJI on October 6, and release it to the media a few days letter.
Timing of the Letter
Mr. Venugopal too in his earlier reply on November 2, had concurred that the timing of the letter was “suspect “in this context, the Attorney-General referred to Mr. Upadhyay’s statement that Mr. Reddy had 3 criminal cases against him. In this second communication to Mr. Upadhyay on Saturday, Mr. Venugopal however said that the letter could not be described as a “private missive”.
Thus, there was no reason or him to change hi mind regarding granting consent to initiate contempt
“I find that the objectionable statement has been made in a letter dated 06-11-2020.written by the Chief Minister to the Chief Justice of India. Hon’ble Mr. Justice SA Bobde. This letter was released to the press By Shr. Ajeya Kallam, Principal Advisor to the Chief Minister at a press conference on 10-10-2020.
The AG KK Venugopal said in his reply to Mr. Ashwini Kumar that “However, I would invite your attention to the fact that my refusal to grant consent does not preclude you from bringing these facts to the notice of the Hon’ble Judges of Supreme Court with a prayer for initiation of suo motu action.
Urging that a contempt case be filed against Kellam, the letter states that the principal advisor “is a senior IAS officer and ought to know better about the consequences of releasing such material to the press”.
Mr. Ashwini Kumar had sought consent from AG Venugopal under section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Rule 3 of the Rules to Regulates Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975,
[Read Letter]
