[Raghu Rama Krishna Raju case] Andhra Pradesh HC initiates contempt against ADGP (CID); objects to "brazenness, arrogance" with which AAG argued

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently took strong exception to the brazen manner in which an Additional Advocate General (AAG) P Sudhakar Reddy defended the failure by State authorities to comply with the Court's orders concerning the medical examination of Kanumuri Raghu Rama Krishna Raju issued in the wake of allegations that the MP was tortured while in police custody..This development arose two days before the Supreme Court on Friday ordered the release of Raju on bail in the sedition case registered against him. .[BREAKING] Supreme Court grants Raghurama Krishnam Raju bail in sedition case; holds that he "may have been" ill-treated in police custody.In an order passed on May 19, the Bench of Justices C Praveen Kumar and Lalitha Kanneganti castigated AAG P Sudhakar Reddy for the intimidating manner in which law officer argued. ."This Court is surprised with the brazenness and arrogance that the Additional Advocate General advanced arguments, representing the State ... Brazenness is not outspokenness and arrogance is not fearlessness. Use of temperate language is not assertion of right nor is a threat in an argument," said Justice Kanneganti, who authored the lead opinion. .She went on to emphasise that while a lawyer need not be subservient to the court while putting forward his case, he is not expected to be discourteous either. "No one expects a lawyer to be subservient to the Courts while presenting his case and not to put forward his arguments merely because Court is against him, but he is not expected to be discourteous to the Court or to fling hot words or epithets or use disrespectful, derogatory or threatening language or exhibiting temper, which has the effect of overbearing the Court.".Further, the Court also made pertinent observations on the higher responsibilities cast on lawyers representing the State. “A counsel who represents the State is required to state the facts in a correct and honest manner. He has to discharge his duty with immense responsibility and each of his action has to be sensible. He is expected to have a higher standard of conduct. He has a special duty towards the Court in rendering assistance. It is because he has access to the public records and is obliged to protect the public interest. That apart, he has a moral responsibility to the Court. When these values corrode, one can say ‘things fall apart’," Justice Kanneganti commented. .In his concurring opinion, Justice Kumar also echoed similar sentiments stating the AAG should have shown restraint while making arguments. "I feel that learned Additional Advocate General Sri P Sudhakar Reddy should have shown some restraint during the course of arguments. Restraint is the hallmark of a court room debate and choice of words should also be measured in a contested matter. The Additional Advocate General could have been sober and used better words during the court proceedings.".In a show of magnanimity, the Bench stopped short of initiating contempt proceedings against the AAG. The Court proceeded to caution the AAG to avoid such transgressions in the future. ."No advocate has any right to talk in an intimidating manner. Advocate should not employ such tactics to wrench an order in favour and should never identify himself with the client. The arguments advanced by the Additional Advocate General are prima facie appears to be contemptuous in nature and this is a fit case for initiating contempt proceedings and referring him to the Bar Council for taking appropriate action. But this court showing its magnanimity is not proposing to take any action as of now. However, if this behaviour is repeated the court will not hesitate to take required action", the order stated..The Court, however, initiated contempt proceedings against the Additional Director General of Police (CID), Station House Officer, CID Police Station, Mangalagiri and the Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Guntur for failing to implement the High Court's orders dated May 15 and May 16.."Prima facie, it appears to this Court that the 3rd Respondent i.e. The Additional Director General of Police (CID), 4th Respondent, i.e. Station House Officer, CID Police Station, Mangalagiri and Superintendent, government General Hospital failed to implement the orders of this Court, and they have displayed scant respect towards the orders of this Court. It is the sacrosanct duty of the Courts to ensure implementation of its own orders in order to safeguard the rights of the individual and uphold the majesty of the institution," the Court said..Sequence of events, as chronicled in the Court order.On May 15, the Court had directed the constitution of a medical board and to examine Krishnam Raju after Senior Advocate B Adinarayana Rao wrote to the Chief Justice alleging that the MLA was subjected to third degree torture while in police custody. .While directing the submission of the medical report, the Court had also intimated that it would convene at 12 pm on May 16..However, no medical report was received on the morning of May 16. Calls made to the Superindentant, Government General Hospital, Guntur went unanswered until late in the afternoon, at around 3.46 pm when she responded and said that the report is being prepared and that it would be sent to the district Judge immediately. .The delay in filing the report led to the Court convening later in the evening at 6 pm. The report was received by the Court only at 6.30 pm on May 16. .The Court was then told that after its May 15 order, the accused was produced for remand before a Magistrate who has also ordered a medical examination at the Ramesh Hospital, Guntur and Government General Hospital at Guntur..The High Court, therefore, directed that the Magistrate’s order be complied with and the reports be placed before the Magistrate..The AAG requested that the order for the medical exam to be conducted at Ramesh Hospital be modified since a case has been registered against the hospital owner. As such, an unbiased opinion cannot be expected from Ramesh Hospital, he submitted. However, since the Magistrate order was not challenged, the High Court opined that the same would remain in force..On May 19, the Court asked the AAG whether the High Court’s orders were complied with or not, while also taking note that the May 16 order was served late on the respondents at about 11 pm that day and given that the Supreme Court had also passed an order on the issue on May 17 in the afternoon. .However, this led to intemperate comments from the part of the AAG, the Court recorded. The sequence of events were summed up in Justice Kanneganti's lead opinion as follows:.“The Learned Additional Advocate General flared up in a high tone to the annoyance of the Court and in an intimidating manner started arguing that an order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is 'fraud' and 'illegal' order cannot be implemented and that the High Court has become a platform to implement an illegal order of the magistrate. Further to demonstrate how the order of the Magistrate is illegal, he wanted the Court to look at Section 54 of CrPC. This Court has refused to look at Section 54 as this Court is not going to examine the legality or otherwise of the order passed by this court. If the order is an illegal, fraud order as alleged by him, the illegality will necessarily have to be challenged before the appellate court. It is firmly reiterated that the court only wanted to know whether the order was complied with or not. He submits that he has received the order copy at 11.00 pm and he posed a question to the Court whether 'he is supposed to open the prison doors at night and shift him to the hospital?'".When the Court queried why the respondents had not complied with the High Court's directions in the morning, the AAG is stated to have continued arguments in an intimidating tone. At one point, the AAG is also stated to have threatened to walk out of the courtroom, before the Bench warned the State counsel against such uncontrolled remarks. ."Continuing the very same intimidating tone, he stated that the Court has to hear what he has to submit and if the Court is not letting him to argue on merits. i.e. how it is an “illegal”/ “fraud” order, he will walk out. Further in a louder tone, he cast aspersions on this Court as to 'what is the special interest of the Court in this case and what is so special about the letter to be accepted and to take up this case”. At that point the court has cautioned the Additional Advocate General to have a control on his words and being an officer of the Court, it is not the way to respond as these types of obnoxious, frivolous, allegations will tarnish the image of the judiciary," the Court recorded..The Court proceeded to reject the justifications offered for the failure to comply with the earlier orders, with the Bench emphasising that even an accused has rights which the State should protect..The Court noted that the reasons assigned by the State for not implementing the Court’s order were:1. that “it is illegal/ fraud”;2. that the jail doors cannot be opened at 11 pm; and 3. that the accused has approached the Supreme Court..None of these reasons, prima facie, convince the Court, the Bench opined. The Court added that respondents cannot sit in appeal over the orders passed by the court and decide it is an illegal order..Even if an order is void, a competent forum has to so declare it and it is not permissible for anyone to ignore the order on his opinion that the order is void, the Court said. .The matter will be taken up next after the summer vacation. .[Read Order]