Litigation News

Amaravati Land Scam Probe: Supreme Court hears AP Government's plea challenging gag order [LIVE UPDATES]

The petition challenges the gag order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in relation to an FIR registered against a former Advocate General of the State, among others.
Supreme Court Live Updates
Supreme Court Live Updates

The Supreme Court is hearing the plea filed by the Andhra Pradesh government assailing the gag order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court on September 15 in relation to an FIR registered against a former Advocate General of the State, among others.

The High Court had also stayed the investigation in relation to the Amravati land scam case, in which the FIR registered by the State’s Anti Corruption Bureau named daughters of a sitting Supreme Court judge.

Also Read
Supreme Court issues notice in plea challenging AP HC stay on probe into Amaravati land irregularities

Live updates of the hearing feature here.

Dr Rajeev Dhavan appears for the State of AP: Letter of March 23 was sent to CBI was sent by the state government. Entire High Court order is based on this letter. Media was stopped by this order.

Senior Advocate Dhavan: Can a March 23 letter be the basis of the ancillary reliefs being granted? This is a writ alleging political malafide. After the gag order a lot of IAs was filed saying there should be no publicity etc.

Dhavan: I ask myself is this an anticipatory bail? The probe was also stayed. News regarding registration of FIR was ordered not to be made public.

Dhavan: There are 13 people in the FIR. The plea is not that don't investigate the FIR but just not to probe against one member. Now let me submit whether its a case of political malafide or not.

Dhavan: Scandal was Amravati had to be made the capital. State had no money. It was stated that if farmers give lands then farmers will get something in the new capital. This information was made available in June 2014. Lot of farmers sold their lands and scam was around this

Dhavan: After the YSR Reddy came to power in June 2019 a cabinet subcommittee was constituted to examine this  Amravati Land Scam Case

In February 2020 a special SIT was set up. On March 23, this letter was challenged. This was a knee jerk reaction. A letter was sent to Centre too.

Dhavan: An order was passed to conduct an enquiry on September 8. The date of the petition is September 15. As soon as enquiry was ordered this writ was filed and it was decided on the same day.

Court: Only interim order was passed. Not decided finally

Dhavan: The question is can this be passed

Dhavan: There was no coercion here. What is so extra ordinarily special that such an order has to be passed?

Dhavan: Now let us see if there is malafide in this. Relief was granted after it was contended that "government was running state in utter disregard of the constitution." Is that a reason for relief in a criminal case?

Dhavan: Your lordship has ruled that FIR in any case is a public document.

Dhavan: This is an entire political writ petition against the Chief Minister. Plea is based not on facts but reliable sources which too are not revealed.

Dhavan: Complaint was written on Sept 5 and recieved on September 7. This writ was filed as a counter on September 15.

Dhavan: Should such a complaint be investigated at all or not? Are the allegations of mala fide true that he was just targeted for being an AG appearing for the CM. I have not come across such a complaint not disclosing any commission of offence.

Dhavan: Was there any racketeering take place or a series of transactions? Is there something which needs to be investigated? This writ was heard at 6.30 pm for the sake of urgency?

Justice Bhushan: We are satisfied that matter needs consideration. We will issue notice.

Dhavan: I am seeking an interim order, My Lord

Court: We will look into that too

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi: This letter against the AG was forwarded to CBI as he appeared in 25 corruption cases which had been levelled against the Chief Minister. I had urged the High Court to hear it immediately as it tarnished the reputation of a lawyer with the standing of 30 years

Rohatgi: It's two and half months and we have no hesitation to the matter heard. When Airport comes up there are suits filed and this is an Airport. My client is targeted because he was appearing for the CM. This case reeks of malafide.

Rohatgi: This is worse than emergency. CBI did not do anything. My reputation is being damaged.

Senior Advocate Harish Salve: This is a vote of no confidence against the High Court. No reply was filed in the High Court stating SLP has been filed in the Supreme Court. If the order was so wrong they should have urged the High Court to vacate the order. CM now makes allegations against Chief Justice

Salve: The court must not excercise jurisdiction under Article 136. The High Court can deal with this. Now secondly this case mostly is about "regime revenge" as Mr Dhavan coined the phrase.

Salve: High Court knows what’s happening in the State. This former AG in his writ has pointed out where all he had appeared against the current CM YS Jagan Mohan Reddy.The former AG has clearly averred this.

Salve: The former AG has contended that this is because of which he was targeted. He has pointed out the number of cases he had argued against YSR Reddy.

Salve: You think whatever trump card you have against someone you throw it on their face? Just because you are angry with him you are targeting him. On this basis if High Court gives 4 weeks time to file reply,  will heavens fall if reply is filed there?

Dr Dhavan: We have nothing against the court. I have no doubt that on September 15 forensic powers were used and the case was heard in the evening. We were heard but Mr Rohatgi has not discussed anywhere what commission has been committed

Dr Dhavan: It is being said this is regime revenge. It was used by me when I was defending former Tamil Nadu CM J Jayalalithaa in 1996-1997. Such revenge takes place but does this mean the next government cannot take up an investigation when there is a criminal case with offence?

Dr Dhavan: According to Mr Salve, this is a case of malicious prosecution, but as a former law officer he would know what this case entails. Here names of vendors and vendees are there which connects and links it to the accused. No one denies this chain

Dr Dhavan: Now it is being said that go back to High Court. For what, they are happy with the High Court order and what can it proceed with no investigation and no media involvement. The gist is there is no disclosure of offence. Was it knee jerk reaction? No. CBI was requested too.

Dhavan: CBI did not reject the request. They never replied. Such High Court orders cannot be passed.

Court: Ok, we got it.

Dhavan: Give me a few more minutes.

Dhavan: Everything I have said is supported by the judgments of this Court. In Prakash Nadar case it was stated ultimate test how probe should not be scuttled at the threat of inking the opposition. This writ was filed in anticipation of an FIR

Senior Advocate Dhavan refers to the Lalita Kumari judgment of the top court.

Order: Heard the counsels. Issue notice to Respondent 5 as High Court did not issue notice to him. Respondent 1 to file a counter affidavit in 2 weeks. List the matter last week of January.

The directions issued on September 15 by Andhra Pradesh High Court (gag order) is stayed. High Court to not finally decide writ petition.

Breaking: Supreme Court stays the gag order directed by Andhra Pradesh High Court. All other orders remain in force. Notices issued to to ex Advocate General, DGP, DG (ACB). No notice to YS Jagan Mohan Reddy as the High Court did not issue notice to the CM.

Supreme Court of India
Gag Order
Amaravati

Related Stories

No stories found.
Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news
www.barandbench.com