SC to hear petition challenging appointment of sitting AP High Court judge Petition alleges deliberate concealment of pending criminal investigation at the time of enrollment

In what many perceive to be an unprecedented move, a writ petition (a copy of which is with Bar & Bench) has been filed in the Supreme Court, challenging the appointment of a sitting judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Justice NV Ramana (pictured). The petition alleges that the collegium had failed to take notice of several vital facts while recommending Justice Ramana’s name for elevation to the High Court..In what many perceive to be an unprecedented move, a writ petition (a copy of which is with Bar & Bench) has been filed in the Supreme Court, challenging the appointment of a sitting judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Justice NV Ramana (pictured). The petition alleges that the collegium had failed to take notice of several vital facts while recommending Justice Ramana’s name for elevation to the High Court..A petition filed by one M. Manohar Reddy and Senior Advocate MV Narasimha Reddy [M. Manohar Reddy & Anr v Union of India & Ors, WP(C) 174 of 2012] states that on February 13, 1981, Justice Ramana was one of several students of the Nagarjuna University in Guntur who indulged in “large scale rioting” and damaged public property. Subsequently, an FIR was registered by the Mangalagiri Police Station in Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh naming Justice Ramana as the main accused in the case..When Justice Ramana enrolled with the State Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh in February 1983, no mention of the FIR or of any pending criminal investigation was made and the enrollment was accepted..On October 16, 1983 the charge sheet with respect to the alleged rioting, which arrayed Justice Ramana as an accused, was filed before the competent court. Up till this point, it might have been possible that Justice Ramana was unaware of the pending investigation. It is the subsequent events, which if proved to be true, would raise pointed questions on the entire “consultative process” behind judicial appointments..The petition states that on February 16, 1991, the trial court had fixed a date for the appearance of Justice Ramana and the co-accused. However, he never appeared and nine years later, on May 8, 2000, the trial court proclaimed Justice Ramana and his co-accused as “absconders”. It was exactly around this time, that Justice Ramana’s name was forwarded to the collegium for his appointment to the AP High Court and on June 27, 2000, Ramana was appointed as a judge. It is presumed that the proceedings before the trial court continued and this is where things get really interesting..The petition states that in April 2001, the recording of evidence began in the trial court in the absence of the absconding accused and some of the prosecution witnesses were also examined who did not name Justice Ramana. However, later in November 2001, the trial court judge wrote to the District Judge, requesting him to “treat the case as a Long Pending Case”. Interestingly, on December 11, 2001, the AP Government issued a government order, declaring that it had decided to withdraw prosecution against all the accused in the rioting matter..On January 31, 2002 the application for withdrawal was taken up and disposed off by the trial court, marking an end to the entire proceedings..All of this would have gone unnoticed had the Petitioners failed to take note of a newspaper report published in the Telugu daily, Saakshi Newspaper. It was this report, which drew the attention of the Petitioners who subsequently made their own enquiries and collected documents. The Petitioners also state that these facts were brought to the notice of the Chief Justice of India as well as the Union Law Minister but no response has been forthcoming..On May 10, 2012, the petition was listed before a bench of Justices Aftab Alam and Ranjana Prakash Desai. An article in The Pioneer states that the matter was argued by Senior Advocates Shanti Bhushan and Ram Jethmalani. No notice was issued on that day, with the matter being posted for further hearing on July 9, 2012.