Justice N V Ramana

Interview: ‘Police Reforms Should Become an Election Issue,’ Says Former UP DGP

Retired IPS officer Prakash Singh says although Supreme Court ruled in favour of reforms in 2006, there has hardly been any headway in this regard.

IPS (Indian Police Service) officer Prakash Singh has served as DGP (director general of police) of Uttar Pradesh and Assam, and also commanded India’s Border Security Force (BSF). He is one of the key architects and advocates for police reforms in India.

IPS officer Prakash Singh. Photo: Twitter.

Responding to a PIL (public interest litigation) filed in 1996 by Singh, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark verdict on September 22, 2006, giving specific directions to the Union and state governments to carry out structural reforms with regard to the police force. The idea behind the judgment is to insulate the police force from external pressures and increase its accountability before people.

In an interview with Mohd Naushad Khan, the former DGP described his efforts in pursuit of police reforms and what the response has been like from the government and judiciary.

Even after 15 years (after Supreme Court judgment on September 22, 2006), not a single state and union territory has fully complied with the directives of the court in the Prakash Singh judgment. What do you think has resulted in the lack of progress?

Indeed, no state has fully complied with the Supreme Court’s directions. But it is also true that they have made halting, hesitant and half-hearted attempts towards compliance. Therefore, there is some movement forward, though not enough and not adequate. We see partial compliance in some states. Therefore, it cannot be described as zero compliance.

In fact, states have been on the defensive to ensure that the Supreme Court does not take adverse note of their performance in this regard. And, at least on the paper, they think they should appear to be complying with the instructions of the apex court.

The states have done certain things, but at the same time, if you dig deeper, you will find that much of the compliance has been superficial. It is a bit farcical, in the sense, wherever possible they have diluted, modified the directions, and in some cases, the states have attempted to scuttle or sabotage them. For example:

1. The Union government mandated that every state should have a State Security Commission (SSC) with the objective of insulating the police force from external pressure. Such commissions are supposed to be constituted in the way that they are evenly balanced with representatives from the government and civil society. That is the objective of the Supreme Court.

Now, what we find is that in most of the states either there is a preponderance of the government representatives, or if they are equal in number, we find that persons chosen from the civil society are known supporters of the government. This defeats the very objective of constituting the SSC.

Also read: It Is the Need of the Hour To Understand Police Brutality in India and Take Action

The Supreme Court has already made it clear that SSCs should not be dominated by the government. But if the representatives chosen from the civil society are known supporters of the government, then they would not express their independent views as the members of SSCs. In a way, the composition of SSCs is being influenced.

The Union government has said that whatever SSCs say should be binding on the respective governments. However, states have said that the directives from SSCs should not be binding, but recommendatory only.

Once you have it recommendatory, then it is as good as not having an SSC. If it is just recommendatory, then the option is with the state to accept or reject depending on whether such instructions are politically convenient or not. The purpose of an SSC is to act as a watchdog to ensure that the government does not interfere in the day-to-day functions of the police. And also, the police do not transgress the limits of the law.

It is supposed to be a body between the government and the police to keep both within their proper limits. But once you have diluted the composition of an SSC and once you have curtailed its power, then the purpose of having such commissions is defeated.

2. The DGP is to suppose have a tenure of two years irrespective of superannuation on selection. What some states have started doing is that they have been appointing officers as DGPs who have a few months before their retirement. There have been instances where officers who have just one month, or in some cases one week, left have been made DGPs. Making such officers DGPs means denying other officers who have the chance to get promoted.

In fact, this was brought to the notice of the then chief justice Ranjan Gogoi who made it clear that police officers must have a minimum of six months of service left to be considered for empanelment as a DGP. However, this rule concerning the appointment of DGPs is also being flouted.

3. Now, let’s look at complaints authority. As per law, SSCs must be headed by a district session judge at the district level, and at the state level by a retired judge of the Supreme Court or a high court. Now, what some states have done is that they have made district magistrates as the heads of SSCs at the state level.

Once an administrative officer (district magistrate or commissioner) becomes the head of an SSC, then the commission discharging its function objectively is to an extent reduced. Uttar Pradesh has said it does not need a Security Commission. The state government there says that it already has enough watchdogs to look into complaints, and it doesn’t need an SSC. In Odisha, the government has made Lokayukta the chairman of the SSC. There are all kinds of diversions. In effect, the Supreme Court’s order has not been followed either in the letter or in spirit.

What do you think are the challenges in implementing these directives?

The challenges are at four levels:

Firstly, the political class is not inclined to implement the Supreme Court’s directions on police reforms for the simple reason that it thinks by doing so its regulatory power over police gets diminished. No government, including those who are in opposition today, talks of police reforms. The opposition, despite being at the receiving end, does not support police reforms fully.

The second challenge is from our bureaucracy. India’s bureaucracy has become accustomed to dictate terms to the police. I am not questioning the superiority of the civil administration. However, one should understand that while the civil administration has full authority to lay down guidelines, define objectives and policies, the operational part about achieving those objectives and implementation of those policies should be left to the police.

I call it operational autonomy. The police do not mind any policy being given to them, but what the police find difficult is the day-to-day interference in their functioning. There is an absence of operational autonomy.

Delhi police at Delhi-Meerut Expressway amidst farmer protests, in New Delhi on December 7, 2020. Photo: PTI.

Could you elaborate on this term ‘operational autonomy’ for the police?

Look, one may say to the police force to maintain good law and order and there should be no communal riots. However, saying that X and Y should/should not be mentioned in an FIR [first information report], charges cannot be framed against X and Y, and the evidence should not be collected against certain people are not acceptable. The bureaucracy should not have the power to dictate this to the police. This lack of operational autonomy for the police is a huge problem and there is tremendous resistance from the bureaucracy to relinquish this power over the police.

[Editor’s note: The first two challenges have been mentioned in the answer to the previous question.]

The third challenge in implementing the directives of the Supreme Court is that a section of the police officers are themselves not in favour of police reforms. They are in the top bracket and all their lives they have curried favour with those in the highest echelons of power expecting to get top promotions in the police department through this proximity. Such senior police officers are not keen on police reforms.

Fourth, the people, in general, are indifferent to police reforms. However, the level of awareness has increased, and every time there is a crisis in the country, you will find that newspaper editorials invariably discuss police reforms. They say that due to the lack of police reforms, we continue to suffer and have such incidents.

Also read: Why the Public Looks at the Police With Disdain

Why do you think states are resisting police reforms, and why some states have implemented some provisions while others are non-compliant?

That depends on the nature of leadership at the state level. I have seen that the larger the state greater is the dadagiri and resistance to police reforms.

You will be surprised that the northeastern states (Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) in particular have shown greater respect for the Supreme Court’s directive in this regard and their level of compliance is much higher than Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Maharashtra.

The large states think that they need not comply and can get away with it. It all depends on the leadership at the state level and how enlightened it is. In Kerala, when A.K. Antony was the chief minister, he tried to introduce police reforms genuinely. But after he left office, there has been regression again and the state has gone to its earlier position. The enlightenment of the state leadership determines the acceptance and rejection of police reforms.

Is there any mechanism to put pressure on the non-compliant states to adhere to the directives in both letter and spirit?

There are several mechanisms to put pressure on the non-compliant states.

1. The Supreme Court can hold them for contempt by stating that either you comply or you will be charged with contempt of court.

2. The Union government can incentivise states that implement police reforms by offering more grants for police modernisation, among others.

3. People must articulate and demand police reforms aggressively. Once people start raising their voices on this subject, there will be pressure on the non-compliant states. If it becomes an election issue and people say ‘we are not going to vote for you, if you do not support police reforms’ all political parties will be under pressure. Our politicians are not prepared to lose elections. They are ready to do anything to remain in power.

Besides, at the state level, NGOs, enlightened citizens who are convinced about the need for police reforms could move the high courts.

What can Supreme Court do to ensure compliance?

The Supreme Court has not exercised all the powers it has to ensure compliance. It has only issued directions. That is fine. The honourable judges have expressed themselves in favour of police reforms. The Supreme Court has the power to punish states for contempt, but it hasn’t done so far. Why it hasn’t done so far is something that I fail to understand.

As a petitioner, I moved the apex court on a number of occasions with contempt petitions against states which came across as the most defiant. But the court has never issued any notice to non-complying states.

Recently the Chief Justice of India has expressed concern over the role of the police force. Do you believe that the implementation of Prakash Singh’s judgment can address his concern?

It can to a great extent, but not entirely. But let me also tell you that for the last two years, the matter has not been listed by the Supreme Court. In fact, I have been trying for it to be listed. Before the present Chief Justice, mention was made in the Supreme Court that the matter should be listed. We were also given an assurance that it will be listed in the month of October 2021, but so far nothing happened.

The Supreme Court should revive this petition as far as monitoring the implementation of directives is concerned. I am still waiting and hoping that the court will take up the matter seriously.

Finally, what is your expectation from the present Chief Justice of India?

I am optimistic and have great expectations from Chief Justice Ramana because he has been issuing very positive statements. He has been expressing concern and saying those police officers who are loyal to one government must face the music when another government takes over. I expect that if the matter comes up before him, he may take a stronger view. But unless that happens, it only remains a hope.

‘Fill Vacancies or Shut Them’: SC Hauls Up Union Govt Over ‘Sorry’ State of Tribunals

There are vacancies for the posts of 20 presiding officers, 110 judicial members and 111 technical members across various tribunals in the country.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday, August 6, asked the Centre whether it wants to continue running tribunals or shut them down completely, exasperated over the large number of vacancies which virtually make them defunct, Indian Express has reported.

Calling it a “sorry state of affairs”, a two-judge bench comprising Chief Justice N.V. Ramana pointed out that there are vacancies of 20 presiding officers, 110 judicial members and 111 technical members across various tribunals in the country.

“We don’t know what is the stand as you want to continue to tribunals or close it down?” Ramana asked solicitor general Tushar Mehta.

Justice Surya Kant, another judge on the bench, asked the Union government to come up with a stance over tribunals in a week and said otherwise the court would be compelled to “call all top officers across the country to appear before” it.

The judges made the above remarks while dealing with two petitions concerning tribunals. One of them was filed in the wake of Union government notification transferring the jurisdiction of Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Jabalpur to DRT, Lucknow, because the Jabalpur one has no presiding officer. The second petition sought the establishment of the Goods and Services Appellate Tribunal.

Also read: Why Is it So Hard to Fill up the Judicial Vacancies in Our Courts?

The CJI pointed out that the registry of the government had shown that 15 tribunals have no chairperson or members. “There are tribunals where there are vacancies of presiding officers. In Telecom Disputes Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), no one is there. In National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) also, judicial and administrative vacancies are there,” Ramana informed.

Responding to judges’ remarks, the solicitor general said the issue pertaining to DRT Jabalpur was true, and said if a tribunal is not there in some area, it cannot be entrusted with some other tribunal located elsewhere. He agreed that the proposed shifting of DRT Jabalpur to DRT Lucknow was mistakenly done. As for the filling up of vacancies and non-appointment to tribunals, he blamed it on pending cases.

However, the CJI pointed out to “some lobbies” that, according to him, were working against filling vacancies in tribunals. On the other hand, Justice Surya Kant said, “You cannot make the tribunals defunct…If you want it to continue, then fill the vacancies.”

In response to the court’s remarks that it will have to summon officers if the Union government does not take a stance on the issue in a week, Mehta said “that will not be needed” and sought 10 days’ time. Granting 10 days’ time, the court scheduled the next hearing of the matter on August 16.

Pegasus: Over 500 Activists, Writers, Lawyers Appeal to CJI to Seek Answers From Govt

‘We believe that the Supreme Court can only instil confidence in people’s, and particularly women’s minds by transparently demanding and making public all answers relating to the use of Pegasus in India.’

New Delhi: Over 500 individuals, including acclaimed writers, journalists, lawyers, academicians and activists, have addressed a letter to Chief Justice of India, N.V. Ramana, to press for the Supreme Court’s “immediate intervention” into the potential surveillance of phones belonging to several eminent citizens using military-grade Pegasus spyware, which was revealed by The Wire and 16 other media organisations from across the globe.

The letter and news of it was first published on LiveLaw.

The signatories of the letter include activists Aruna Roy, Anjali Bhardwaj, Kavita Krishnan and Harsh Mander, lawyers like Vrinda Grover, Jhuma Sen; academics such as Jayati Ghosh, Sukanta Chaudhari, Zoya Hasan and Romila Thapar; writers like Arundhati Roy, V. Geetha, Githa Hariharan; politician Manoj Jha along with journalists Anuradha Bhasin, Patricia Mukhim and John Dayal and several others from various walks of life.

The signatories, in their open letter, raised four specific questions, and asked the Supreme Court to direct the government to answer them:

Whether any Indian entity purchased Pegasus, who that entity was, and how it was paid for (given that the costs are reportedly estimated to amount Rs 1.5 crore per phone)?
If it was indeed purchased, how were the targets for hacking chosen and what use was made of the information so gained?
What were the admissible justifications for such targeting, and before which Constitutional authority were they presented?
Which constitutional authority oversaw or reviewed the criminal violation of privacy of so many individuals, including journalists, politicians, lawyers, human rights activists, and academics (and the SC staffer and her family members) so that they came to be on the list of Pegasus targets?

The signatories said, “We believe that the Supreme Court can only instil confidence in people’s, and particularly women’s minds by transparently demanding and making public all answers relating to the use of Pegasus in India,” the signatories said.

Also read: Make Govt Reveal if it Used Pegasus: Editors N. Ram, Sashi Kumar File Petition in Supreme Court

The letter specifically raised the issue of the alleged sexual harassment against former CJI Ranjan Gogoi by a Supreme Court staffer. The signatories lamented that a sexual harassment victim was allegedly put on the snooping list, and questioned the legality of the in-house inquiry by the apex court against Gogoi.

Continuing further on Pegasus spyware attacks, the letter said, “We hope that your office will lose no time in taking notice of this matter, and seeking time-bound answers to protect our rights and freedoms, its own credibility as an institution and in defence of our Constitution.”

Below is the complete letter and the list of signatories:

The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Supreme Court of India,

Respected Hon’ble Chief Justice of India,

The Pegasus spyware investigation has unveiled how its military grade malware installed on the phones of those targeted converts the device for use by a consumer to an object that spies on the individual, steals data and transmits data to unknown persons/databases. This has been defined as cyber warfare by experts in the field and it is nothing less than an act of state sponsored cyber terrorism against individuals. In this context, the Pegasus project and information in public domain raises concerns for the integrity of constitutional authorities including the independence of the Supreme Court. The investigation starkly discloses that the rights and freedoms of peoples, of which the Supreme Court is the guardian, are under grave risk.

We are deeply disturbed by reports that journalists, lawyers, clients, activists, academics, students, and even complainants of sexual harassment, witnesses and their support persons were made persons of interest and targets of the Pegasus malware. Human rights activists have repeatedly asserted that such hacking as well as other kinds of abuse of office has resulted in malicious prosecution, wrongful imprisonment, custodial torture, and custodial death of political prisoners.

For women, the Pegasus scandal is deeply concerning, for speaking out against the state and men in positions of state power has meant that their lives are wrecked by such surveillance permanently. Human rights defenders have been imprisoned, and victims of sexual harassment have also not been spared such shocking forms of state sponsored cyber-crimes, which are analogous to digital forms of state terror. We are extremely disturbed by indications that targets for such hacking included the Supreme Court woman staffer who in April 2019 raised a complaint of sexual harassment and victimisation against former CJI Ranjan Gogoi, as well as 10 mobile numbers linked to her family members. The woman complainant and her family members were added to the list of targets days after she placed an affidavit detailing her complaint of sexual harassment and victimisation, before the then sitting Judges of the Supreme Court.

Also read: Pegasus Project: 155 Names Revealed By The Wire On Snoop List So Far

It is common knowledge that Pegasus software is sold by the Israeli firm NSO only to governments, ostensibly for “national security” and “counter-terrorism” purposes. It is used to hack into smartphones remotely, and then gain control over those smartphones, without the knowledge of the target. The Indian list of targets indicates that the software was used, not to counter terrorism, but to gather information on, and perhaps thereby seek to control, Opposition politicians, the judiciary, the Press, as well as activists and others in civil society.

Women all over the country demand to know: was a sexual harassment complainant, along with members of her family, subjected to such invasive hacking—and if so, to what purpose and by whom? How can any woman in India ever be expected to pursue a complaint against a hierarchical superior in the face of the chilling possibility that this may expose her and her loved ones to such a sinister criminal invasion of privacy? The Supreme Court’s response to the woman’s complaint in 2019 had been to set up an In-House Committee of three sitting Judges of the Supreme Court. The complainant withdrew from the said In-House Committee proceedings, stating that the Committee refused to inform her about the procedure being followed; she was not allowed to have her lawyer present; the proceedings were not recorded; and copy of her testimony was not simultaneously given to her. She also stated that she and her family members were being intimidated and followed. The In-House Committee ex-parte concluded by awarding CJI Ranjan Gogoi, a clean chit. After retiring as Chief Justice of India, Mr. Gogoi is now a Rajya Sabha M.P. from the ruling party.

The recent revelations in the Pegasus project now suggest that far from being a perpetrator of such a plot, the complainant along with her family members was the victim of an elaborate program of illegal hacking and spying. If the complainant was under such criminal duress at the time, can the proceedings of the In-House Committee really have been free and fair? The silence of the Supreme Court as an institution on these revelations is deeply troubling for women in India. There are many questions that the Government of India, the Home Ministry, Mr. Ranjan Gogoi, and the NSO must answer, but as citizens we do not have the power to command such answers from these powerful entities. The Supreme Court has the power and duty to ask these questions, and it must speak for us— just as you recently assured us while speaking at an event in mid-July, “People are confident that they will get relief and justice from the judiciary. They know that when things go wrong, the judiciary will stand by them. The Indian Supreme Court is the guardian of the largest democracy.”

Also read: Presence of Over 60 Women in Leaked List Highlights ‘Bodily Violation’ Posed by Spyware

We hope that your office will lose no time in taking notice of this matter, and seeking time- bound answers to protect our rights and freedoms, its own credibility as an institution and in defence of our Constitution. The Indian public, and the women of India in particular, troubled by the questions as to whether any Indian entity purchased Pegasus, who that entity was, how it was paid for (given that the costs are reportedly estimated to amount Rs 1.5 crore per phone)? If it was indeed purchased, how were the targets for hacking chosen and what use was made of the information so gained? What were the admissible justifications for such targeting, and before which Constitutional authority were they presented? Which Constitutional authority oversaw or reviewed the criminal violation of privacy of so many individuals, including journalists, politicians, lawyers, human rights activists, and academics (and the SC staffer and her family members) so that they came to be on the list of Pegasus targets? We believe that the Supreme Court can only instil confidence in people’s, and particularly women’s minds by transparently demanding and making public all answers relating to the use of Pegasus in India. Above all, we look to the Supreme Court to declare a moratorium on the export, sale, transfer and use of Pegasus in India.

We seek your assurance that the institution of the Supreme Court of India is committed to upholding conditions free of intimidation as a prerequisite for fair inquiry in all matters, including inquiry into complaints of sexual harassment in the workplace (for which, regrettably, the Supreme Court of India has yet to institute an inquiry and redressal mechanism that judiciously combines the principles underlying its Vishaka judgment and the concerns of independence of the judiciary). The Supreme Court must fulfil its institutional obligations to provide women a safe workplace, and to that end, ensure full protection to complainants, their families and lawyers from cyber warfare.

We raise the concerns we do in this letter in order to safeguard the independence of the judiciary, and its commitment to gender equality and freedoms.

Sincerely yours,

Mangai, Marappachi Theatre Group, Chennai
R. Rauf, student, Kishanganj
Aaditya Arya, student (school), Kamhera, Distt. Saharanpur
Aakriti, Delhi/NCR
Aakshat Sinha, Delhi/NCR
Aarthi Sridhar, Bengaluru
Aastha Deshpande, academic, Mumbai
Abdul Kalam Azad, human rights researcher, Assam
Abdul Nazar, Malappuram
Abhijit Gupta, academic, Jadavpur University, Kolkata
Abhisht Hela, lawyer, Delhi High Court, Allahabad
Abou Mere, President, NNagaDAO, Kohima
Achin Vanaik, academic (retired), University of Delhi, Delhi/NCR
Achin Vinayak, academic, New Delhi
Aditi Das Gupta, Kolkata
Aditi Gupta, Ahmedabad
Aditi Mehta, Indore
Aishwarya Visweswaran, Hyderabad
Akhileshwari Ramagoud, journalist (independent) and academic, Secunderabad
Akshay, student, IIT Bombay, Mumbai
Albeena Shakil, academic, Kolkata
Albin David Rebello, business executive, Delhi/NCR
Ali Zaidi, lawyer, Supreme Court of India, Delhi/NCR
Alok Rai, Allahabad
Amba Sanyal, Delhi/NCR
Ambika The, social activist, Hyderabad
Ameet Parameswaran, academic, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi/NCR
Amit Chaudhuri, writer, Kolkata
Amit Jangid, student, Delhi/NCR
Amita, lawyer, Delhi/NCR
Amitabh Srivastava, theatre artiste, Delhi/NCR
Amlan Dasgupta, Kolkata
Ammu Joseph, writer, Bangalore
Amrit Wilson, South Asia Solidarity Group, London
Amrita Johri, SNS, Delhi/NCR
Anil, student, Delhi/NCR
Anindita Bose, Delhi/NCR
Anisha A, entrepreneur, Mumbai
Anjali Bhardwaj, SNS, Delhi/NCR
Anjali Monteiro, filmmaker and academic, Bardez, Goa
Anjali Ojha, Delhi/NCR
Anjana Mangalagiri, Delhi/NCR
Anjani Kumar Sharma, Ara
Ankur Agraj, lawyer, Patna
Ansar Indori, lawyer, National Confederation of Human Rights Organisations, Delhi/NCR
Anupama Potluri, Hyderabad
Anuradha Bhasin, journalist, Jammu
Anuradha Boonlia, Indore
Anuradha Chenoy, academic (retired), Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi/NCR
Anuradha Kapoor, Kolkata
Anuradha Talwar, State Committee member, Paschim Banga Khet Majoor Samity, PO Badu
Anusha Khan, researcher, Mumbai
Aparna Chandra, academic, National Law School of India University, Bengaluru, Bengaluru
Apeksha Priyadarshini, research scholar, Bhagat Singh Ambedkar Students Organization, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi/NCR
Apeksha Vora, Mumbai
Apoorva G., Delhi/NCR
Apurba Roy, Kolkata
Archana Chhetri, psychologist, Gangtok
Archana Prasad, academic, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi/NCR
Areet Kaur, doctor, Mohali
Arokiaraj Edward, teacher, Dehradun
Arpita Das, publisher, Yoda Press, Delhi/NCR
Arun Pratap Shah, lawyer, Dehradun
Aruna Roy, Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan, Village Devdungri, Distt. Rajsamand
Arundhati Roy, writer, New Delhi
Asha Dey, Bengaluru
Ashalatha S, Makaam, Hyderabad
Ashok Nehru, Delhi/NCR
Asrarul Haque, academic, Hyderabad
Atul Gurtu, academic (retired), Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai
Atul Sood, academic, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi/NCR
Austin Thomas, Bangalore
Avani Chokshi, lawyer, AILAJ, Bangalore
Avik, student, Delhi/NCR
Avinash Kumar, academic, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi/NCR
Ayesha Kidwai, academic, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi/NCR
Azim Khan, General Secretary, NCHRO, Delhi/NCR
K. Choudhary, Delhi/NCR
Banojyotsna Lahiri, senior researcher, Centre for Equity Studies, Delhi/NCR
Beena Xavier, Ghaziabad
Ben Imsong, social activist, Kohima
Bharat, Jaipur
Bharati Jagannathan, academic, Faridabad
Bharti Ali, child rights activist, Delhi/NCR
Bharti, Trustee, Santokba trust, Mumbai
Bhashyam Srinivasan, Bengaluru
Bhupender Yadav, academic (retired), Bareilly
Bishnupriya Dutt, academic, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi/NCR
Biswapriya Kanungo, lawyer, Bhubaneswar
Bittu KR, academic, Women Against Sexual Violence and State Repression, Sonipat
Bobbeeta Sharma, General Secretary/Chairperson Media, Assam Pradesh Congress Committee, Guwahati
Brinelle, academic and activist, Mumbai
Cedric Prakash, human rights and peace activist, Ahmedabad
Chayanika Shah, academic (retired), Forum Against Oppression of Women, Mumbai
Cheryl Kharwansan, Mumbai
Chingkhei Saikhom, student activist, Delhi/NCR
Chirashree Das Gupta, academic, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi/NCR
Clifton D’ Rozario, lawyer, All India Lawyers Association for Justice, Bangalore
David D’Costa, business manager, Pure Water House, Bangalore
Debaditya Bhattacharya, academic, Kazi Nazrul University, Asansol
Debashis Ghoshal, Delhi/NCR
Debi Prasad Ghosh, govt official (retired), Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Kolkata
Debjanee Ganguly, Howrah
Deepa Bhargava, Delhi/NCR
Deepa Vasudevan, Thrissur
Deepika Sondhi, freelance communicator, Delhi/NCR
Deepti Bharti, General Secretary, National Federation of Indian Women, Delhi/NCR
Deepti Pradhan, Branford
Dennis S, researcher, Chennai
Denzil Fernandes, Delhi/NCR
Deshdeep Dhankhar, University of Hyderabad, Delhi/Hyderabad
Dev Desai, human rights activist, ANHAD, Ahmedabad
Devakumar R.T., lawyer, Thiruvananthapuram
Devyani Bhardwaj, education, Delhi/NCR
Devyani Gupta, lawyer, Delhi/NCR
Dhruv Raina, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi/NCR
Dhruva Narayan, Founder Trustee, JANAM Foundation, Patna
Dianitius George, engineer, Kochi
Dilip D’Souza, writer, Mumbai
Dilip Simeon, academic and writer, Delhi/NCR
Dolly Thakore, media consultant, Mumbai
Bhat, academic, Delhi/NCR
Elias M, retired teacher, Tirunelveli Distt.
Enakshi Nandi, Delhi/NCR
Faizan Sarwar, research scholar, Hyderabad
G Arunima, Thiruvananthapuram
Vijay, academic, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad
Garima, student, Delhi/NCR
Gaurav, Vadodara
Gautam Dasgupta, teacher, Kolkata
Gautam Menon, academic, Sonepat
Gautam Mody, New Trade Union Initiative, Delhi/NCR
Geeta Seshu, journalist, Free Speech Collective, Mumbai
Geetha Venkataraman, academic, Ambedkar University Delhi, Delhi/NCR
George Monippally, Latehar, Jharkhand
George, Thrissur
Girish Kaushik, retired captain (Sr. Commander), Mumbai
Githa Hariharan, writer, Delhi/NCR
Govind Kelkar, academic, Delhi/NCR
Gyanendra Pandey, academic, Atlanta
Haridas, private sector employee, Thrissur
Harsh Mander, Delhi/NCR
Harsh Parashar, lawyer, Delhi/NCR
Hasina Khan,
Hima Sasidharan, researcher, Gangtok
Huma Khan, Lucknow
Indira Banerjee, research scholar, Kolkata
Indira Bharadwaj, mental health professional, Pune
Indu Kumari, research scholar, Delhi/NCR
International Solidarity for Academic Freedom in India (InSAF India), Europe and North America (organisation)
Ira Raja, Delhi/NCR
Jacobshally, teacher, Goa
Jagdeep Chhokar, academic (retired), Delhi/NCR
James Valanarasan, Godda
Janaki Abraham, Delhi/NCR
Janaki Nair, academic (retired), Jawaharlal Nehru University, Bengaluru
Janani, Chennai
Janet Chawla, Delhi/NCR
Jarjum Ete, Advisor, APWWS (CEC), Itanagar
Jaya Menon, academic, Shiv Nadar University, Delhi/NCR
Jayati Ghosh, academic, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, USA, Northampton
Jaykishan Godsora, Bokaro
Jenny Rowena P, academic, Miranda House, University of Delhi, Delhi/NCR
Jessica Gupta, Delhi/NCR
Jhuma Sen, lawyer, Kolkata
Joe, Hosur
John Dayal, writer and activist, Delhi/NCR
John Paul, social activist, Ahal, Thiruvannamalai
Joy, Thiruvananthapuram
Joya Uraizee, USA
Juhi Bansal, lawyer, Delhi/NCR
Lenin Devasahaya Vinober, lawyer, Students for Social Justice, Delhi/NCR
Menon, academic, Ambedkar University Delhi, Delhi/NCR
Neelu, researcher, Delhi/NCR
Padma, lawyer, Committee for Release of Political Prisoners, Visakhapatnam
Satyanarayana, academic, Hyderabad
G. Prakash, Thiruvananthapuram
K. Muhamed, artist, Kozhikode
Kalpana Kannabiran, Hyderabad
Kalpana Sharma, journalist (independent), Mumbai
Kalpana Wilson, London
Kalyani Menon Sen, researcher (independent), Delhi/NCR
Kamalika Mukherjee, archivist, Kolkata
Kamayani Bali Mahabal, Mumbai
Kamini Tankha, Delhi/NCR
Karan Bali, filmmaker, Mumbai
Karthik R, Bangalore
Kaushal Kumar, academic, Delhi/NCR
Kavita Gaur, academic, Delhi/NCR
Kavita Krishnan, Secretary, All India Progressive Women’s Association, Delhi/NCR
Kavita Panjabi, academic, Jadavpur University, Kolkata
Kavita Srivastava, National Secretary, People’s Union for Civil Liberties, Jaipur
Kawalpreet Kaur, lawyer, All India Students’ Association, Delhi/NCR
Ketholelie Angami, Kohima
Kezia Shah, student, Delhi/NCR
Pou, Delhi/NCR
Kirti Singh, Delhi/NCR
Kochurani Abraham, Thrippunithura
Krishnakumar B, bank employee, Alappuzha
Krithika Radhakrishnan, Bangalore
Kumkum Roy, Delhi/NCR
Kumudini, columnist, All India Progressive Women’s Association, Allahabad
Laavanya, Ranchi
Lalita Ramdas, educator and activist, Bhaimala Village, Alibag, Raigad
Lara Jesani, lawyer, Mumbai
Lata Bhise Sonawane, State secretary, Maharashtra National Federation of Indian Women, Pimpri Chinchwad, Distt. Pune
Lata Singh, academic, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi/NCR
Laxmi Murthy, journalist, Bengaluru
Laxminarayan Ramdas, Admiral, former Chief of the Naval Staff, Bhaimala Village, Alibag, Raigad
Leena Abraham, Mumbai
Leena Dabiru, social activist, Delhi/NCR
Leena Wadia, researcher, Bengaluru
Leila Kabir, Bengaluru
Leo Anthony Singh, National Alliance of People’s Movements, Jharkhand, Ranchi
Liji J., Thiruvananthapuram
Lillette Dubey, actor/ director, Mumbai
Lochumbeni, Dimapur
Lotika Singha, Stoke on Trent UK
Machangbibou Chawang, Dimapur
Madhava Prasad, Hyderabad
Madhu Bhushan, Bangalore
Madhu Sahni, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi/NCR
Madhurima Kundu, All India Students’ Association, Delhi/NCR
Mahabir Singh Khatri, teacher, Delhi/NCR
Maimoona Mollah, President, AIDWA Delhi, Delhi/NCR
Maitrayee Chaudhuri, academic, Delhi/NCR
Maitreyi, Bangalore
Malem Ningthouja, researcher, Imphal
Malika Virdi, Uttarakhand Mahila Manch, Pithoragarh
Malini Subramaniam, Bastar
Mamata Dash, Delhi/NCR
Mamta Jaitly, women’s rights activist, Jaipur, Rajasthan
Manju Sharma, Jaipur
Manjula Pradeep, Ahmedabad
Manoj Kumar Jha, Member of Parliament, Delhi/NCR
Manoj, lawyer, Delhi/NCR
Mansur Ahmed, Progressive Society, Tezpur
Maria Michael R, Hisar
Mary Mitzy, lawyer, SCBA, Delhi/NCR
Mashruf Kamaal Adv, Bijnor
Maya Krishna Rao, theatre artist, Vismayah, Delhi/NCR
Meena Gopal, Mumbai
Meena Kandasamy, writer, UK
Meera Sanghamitra, activist, National Alliance of People’s Movements, Hyderabad
Meeta, self-employed,
Mihika Noronha, doctor, Pune
Mini Mathew, lawyer, Mumbai
Mohammed Mustafa Ali, Hyderabad
Mohan Rao, public health researcher, Bangalore
Moushumi Basu, academic, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi/NCR
Mridul, technology professional, Mumbai
Muizz Drabu, lawyer, Delhi/NCR
Muneer , academic, Collegiate Education Department, Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram
Jayaram, journalist, Bangalore
Sai Balaji, National President, All India Students’ Association, Delhi/NCR
Venugopal, journalist, Editor, Veekshanam, Hyderabad
N.D. Jayaprakash, social activist, Delhi/NCR
Nadathur Krishnan, Panvel/Raigad
Nadeem Khan, United Against Hate, Delhi/NCR
Nandini Rao, Delhi/NCR
Nandita Narain, academic, Democratic Teachers’ Front, University of Delhi, Delhi/NCR
Nandita Shah, Mumbai
Narayan Bharadwaj, retired sailor, Pune
Narendra Dengle, Pune
Natasha Badhwar, filmmaker and author, Delhi/NCR
Navdeep Mathur, Ahmedabad
Navsharan Singh, researcher and feminist activist, Delhi/NCR
Neelakshi Suryanarayan, teacher, Delhi/NCR
Neelanjana Mukhia, Delhi/NCR
Neema Chaurasiya, research scholar, University of Delhi, Delhi/NCR
Neeraj Malik, Delhi/NCR
Neeraj, Delhi/NCR
Nidhi, Delhi/NCR
Nikhat Fatima, Hyderabad
Nikhil Jois K. S., student, Bengaluru
Niloufer Bhagwat, lawyer, Mumbai
Nina Chandavarkar, Bangalore
Ningthoukhongjam Rajesh, journalist, Citizen Radio, Imphal
Niraja Jayal, Delhi/NCR
Nirjhari Sinha, Chairperson, Jan Sangharsh Manch, Ahmedabad
Nirmala Sharma, administrative service (retired), Justice Seekers, Bengaluru
Nisha Biswas, Kolkata
Nishu Kumar, academic, East Garo Hills
Niti Saxena, Lucknow
Nitin Sehgal, Delhi/NCR
Nivedita Menon, Delhi/NCR
Nupur Chowdhury, Delhi/NCR
Nupur Dasgupta, academic, Jadavpur University, Kolkata
Nupur, research scholar, Jaipur
Oishik Sircar, Kolkata
Oishika Neogi, human rights researcher, Delhi/NCR
Okram Nutankumar Singh, lawyer and human rights defender, Imphal
P Sundar Raj, Ariyalur
Padam Kumar, lawyer, Bengaluru
Padma Singh, teacher, Allahabad
Padmaja Shaw, Hyderabad
Pamela Philipose, journalist, Delhi/NCR
Papia Sengupta, Delhi/NCR
Papori Bora, Delhi/NCR
Paramartha Dutta, Calcutta
Parnal Chirmuley, Delhi/NCR
Parongama Sen, Kolkata
Patricia Mukhim, journalist, The Shillong Times, Shillong
Paul C Jesuraja, academic (retired), Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli
Pavan Kumar Nair, veteran, Pune
Philo Thomas, Director, Women’s Welfare Center, Pune
Poulami Ray, Kalyani
Prabhat Patnaik, Professor Emeritus, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi/NCR
Prabir Bose, Goa
Prabir Purkayastha, science activist, Editor, Newsclick.in, Delhi/NCR
Pradipta Bandyopadhyay, Delhi/NCR
Pramod Balakrishnan, architect, Chennai
Prasenjit Bose, Kolkata
Pratiksha Baxi, academic, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi/NCR
Prem Chandavarkar, architect, Bengaluru
Priyaleen Singh, Delhi/NCR
Priyam, Dehradun
Purnima, Delhi/NCR
Pushpamala N., artist, Bengaluru
Qaiser Asad, lawyer, Delhi/NCR
Chaudhuri, Kolkata
Karthick Narayanan, Madurai
Ramachandran, Santiniketan
Radha Sen, Kolkata
Radhika Chakraborty, Delhi/NCR
Rafiq Kidwai, architect, Delhi/NCR
Rahul Jacob, journalist, Bengaluru
Rahul Nigam, academic, BITS, Hyderabad
Rahul Roy, academic, Indian Statistical Institute, Delhi/NCR
Raina Ghosh, research scholar, Delhi/NCR
Rajashri Dasgupta, journalist, Kolkata
Rajeev Bhargava, Delhi/NCR
Rajeev R. Singh, Delhi/NCR
Rajeev Singha, Stoke on Trent UK
Rajeev Yadav, General Secretary, Rihai Manch, Lucknow
Rajoo Barot, artist, Ahmedabad
Rajshree Chandra, University of Delhi, Delhi/NCR
Rakhi Sehgal, Delhi/NCR
Ram Ramaswamy, Delhi/NCR
Rama Baru, Delhi/NCR
Ramani Natarajan, lawyer, Chennai
Rani Day, Filmmaker, Bengaluru
Ranjana Padhi, Women Against Sexual Violence and State Repression, Bhubaneswar
Ranjit Sabikhi, Architect, Delhi/NCR
Ranvijay, National Vice-President, All India Students’ Association, Delhi/NCR
Rashmi Singh, Delhi/NCR
Ravi Srivastava, academic (retired), Delhi/NCR
Ravi Narla, self-employed, Hyderabad.
Reena Ramteke, community correspondent, Gariyaband
Rema Kandaramath, retired IT professional, Ottapalam, Palakkad
Renu Kumari, student, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi/NCR
Renuka Mishra, Delhi/NCR
Riddhi Shah, Delhi/NCR
Rita Manchanda, human rights and peace activist, Delhi/NCR
Ritesh Kumar, Agra
Ritu Varuni, architect, Raigarh
Rituraj Pegu, research scholar, Delhi/NCR
Ritwik Bagchi, research scholar, Kolkata
Riyaz Tayyibji, Ahmedabad
Rohini Hensman, writer and independent scholar, Mumbai
Rohini Mohan, Bengaluru
Rohini Sen, Kolkata
Romila Thapar, Professor Emerita, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi/NCR
Rosemary Dzuvichu, academic, Nagaland University, Kohima
Roshmi, Shillong
Rudi Warjri, retired Ambassador, Shillong
Rukmini Rao, feminist activist, Hyderabad
Rukmini Sen, Kolkata
Runu Chakraborty, Ghaziabad
Sreedevi, AIIPA, Ernakulam
Sachidanand Sinha, academic, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi/NCR
Sachin N, Common Teachers’ Forum, DU, Delhi/NCR
Sadaf Jafar, social activist, Kalrav, Lucknow
Sadhna, Delhi/NCR
Sagari R Ramdas, veterinary scientist, Food Sovereignty Alliance, India, Hyderabad
Saheli Women’s Resource Centre, Delhi/NCR (organisation)
Saibal Roy, Shikasa Bandhu, S.S.M., Mallarpur, Birbhum
Sajni Mukherji, academic (retired), Jadavpur University, Kolkata
Saket Moon, Vice-President Jawaharlal Nehru University Students, Delhi/NCR
Samantak Das, academic, Jadavpur University, Kolkata
Sameera Khan, Mumbai
Samik Bandyopadhyay, publisher-editor, Kolkata
Samiksha Godiyal, lawyer, Delhi/NCR
Samir Kumar Sahoo, Bengaluru
Sandhya Gokhale, Forum Against Oppression of Women, Mumbai
Sandhya Kumari, academic, Delhi/NCR
Sangharsh Apte, researcher, DHRDNet, Thakurli, Thane
Sanghmitra Acharya, academic, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi/NCR
Sanjay Kak, filmmaker, Delhi/NCR
Sanjay Kanvinde, architect, Delhi/NCR
Sanjay Srivastava, Delhi/NCR
Sanjay Wategaonkar, Mumbai
Sapna Gupta, academic, Lords Institute of Engineering and Technology, Hyderabad
Sarika Chaudhary, Secretary Democratic Students’ Federation, Delhi/NCR
Sarla Kumari, social activist, PUCL Jaipur, Jaipur
Sarmad Aziz, researcher, Delhi/NCR
Sarojini N., Jan Swasthya Abhiyan, Delhi/NCR
Satish Varma, Ernakulam
Saugata Bhaduri, Delhi/NCR
Saumya Uma, Sonipat
Saurabh, student, Chandauli
Sawmi Leyri, social activist, Kohima
Sebastian Packiam, Ramanathapuram
Sehba Farooqui, political activist, Delhi/NCR
Shabnam Hashmi, Founder, Anhad, Delhi/NCR
Shafaq Khab, Bhabua Kaimur
Shahana Bhattacharya, Delhi/NCR
Shailesh Kumar, research scholar, University of Delhi, Delhi/NCR
Shambhavi Prakash, Delhi/NCR
Shanta Laishram, academic, Delhi/NCR
Sharmila Kher, Director, Foundation for child protection, Muskaan, Mumbai
Shatarupa Bhattacharya, academic, Faridabad
Sheena Choudhary, Delhi/NCR
Shernaz Italia, Delhi/NCR
Shewli Kumar, Mumbai
Shimreichon Luithui, Ukhrul
Shirshava Indu, student, Kolkata
Shivam Sharma, Delhi/NCR
Shivani Nag, academic, Delhi/NCR
Shivani, interior designer, Shivani Dogra Interiors, Delhi/NCR
Shubha, Pondicherry
Shubhanshu Singh, research scholar and political activist, Delhi/NCR
Shuddhabrata Sengupta, artist and writer, Delhi/NCR
Shukla Sawant, academic and artist, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi/NCR
Shweta Vachani, web designer, Delhi/NCR
Siddhartha Chaudhuri, Senior Research Scientist, Bengaluru
Sima Raza, actor, Mumbai
Sindhuja Sankaran, academic, Chennai
Sitwat Nabi, lawyer, Supreme Court of India, Delhi/NCR
Soma Das, Mathura
Sonali Patnaik, Bhubaneswar
Sonu Kumar, journalist, CEO, IYC News Network/Agency & Media Services, Patna
Sonu Yadav, student, Allahabad
Spandana B.V., student, Hyderabad
Srabani, researcher, Delhi/NCR
Sri Vamsi Mitta, theatre artist, Bangalore
Srishti Mehta, student, Indore
Sruti Bala, Amsterdam
Subir Dey, Delhi/NCR
Sucharita Sen, academic, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi/NCR
Sucheta Mahajan, academic, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi/NCR
Sudhanva Deshpande, publisher, author, actor, LeftWord Books, Delhi/NCR
Sudhir Vombatkere, Mysuru
Sudipta Bhattacharyya, academic, Visva-Bharati, Santiketan
Sugata Hazra, academic, Jadavpur University, Kolkata
Sujata Gothoskar, researcher and activist, Forum Against Oppression of Women, Mumbai
Sujata Madhok, journalist (independent), Delhi/NCR
Sujata Patel, academic, Pune
Sujata Paul Maliah, Dehradun
Sukanta Chaudhuri, Kolkata
Sukanya Ghosh, artist, Delhi/Kolkata
Sukumar Muralidharan, journalist, Delhi/NCR
Suman, Bangalore
Suman, Delhi/NCR
Sumeet Krishna, Ghaziabad
Sumit Baudh,Academic, Sonipat
Suneeta Dhar, feminist activist, Delhi/NCR
Sunil VM, retired govt. employee, Muvattupuzha
Supriya Chaudhuri, Emeritus Professor of English, Jadavpur University, Kolkata
Supriya Varma, Delhi/NCR
Suresh Bhat Bakrabail, Mangaluru
Suroor Mander, Delhi/NCR
Susai Sebastian, social activist, Delhi/NCR
Susan Abraham, Delhi
Susan Abraham, lawyer, Mumbai
Sushil Khanna, academic (retired), IIM Calcutta, Kolkata
Sushma Varma, Bengaluru
Suvir Kaul, Academic, Philadelphia
Suvojit Bagchi, journalist, Kolkata
Svati Joshi, Ahmedabad
Swatija, Forum Against Oppression of Women, Thane
T M Krishna, musician and author, Chennai
C. Jayaprakash, Coorg Distt., Mysore
Tara Murali, architect, Chennai
Tarek Akhtar Ansari, Guwahati
Tarun Bhartiya, RAIOT Webzine, Shillong
Tarun Gogoi, research scholar, Delhi/NCR
Tarun Kumar Yadav, social activist, Saharsa
Teesta Setalvad, Citizens for Justice and Peace, Mumbai
Thokchomcha Beejen, self-employed, Kakching
Thomas Antony, Delhi/NCR
Trina Mukhopadhyay, Kolkata
Trishna S.M., lawyer, Delhi/NCR
Uma Chakravarti, historian and filmmaker, Delhi/NCR
Urmimala Sarkar, academic, Delhi/NCR
Ursila Jung, Delhi/NCR
Usman Jawed, Delhi/NCR
Utsa Patnaik, Professor Emerita, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi/NCR
Geetha, writer, Chennai
Sujatha, Delhi/NCR
Vandana Mahajan, development practitioner, Delhi/NCR
Vandana Nanal, Mumbai
Vandana Prasad, public health professional, Delhi/NCR
Vani Subramanian, filmmaker, Delhi/NCR
Vanita N Mukherjee, Delhi/NCR
Varghese Thomas, private sector employee, Delhi/NCR
Varsha Bhargavi, Gender Sensitisation course director, Feminist Collective, Hyderabad
Vasid Khan, State General Secretary, National Confederation of Human Rights Organizations Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal
Vasuda Arora, mental health professional, Mumbai
Vasudha Nagaraj, lawyer, Hyderabad
Venkatesh Nayak, RTI activist, Bengaluru
Vickram Crishna, Mumbai
Vidyun Sabhaney, artist, Delhi/NCR
Vijay Singh, Delhi/NCR
Vijaylakshmi, social activist, People’s Union for Civil Liberties,
Vikas Bajpai, academic, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi/NCR
Vimeno Angami, Vice President Naga Women Hoho Dimapur, Dimapur
Vinay Bharadwaj, academic (retired), University of Delhi, Delhi/NCR
Vincent, engineer, Irinjalakuda, Trichur
Vineet Tiwari, National Secretary, All india Progressive Writers’ Association, Indore
Vineeta Bal, academic, Pune
Vinod Gupta, Delhi/NCR
Vivan Sundaram, artist, Delhi/NCR
Vrinda Grover, lawyer, Delhi/NCR
Vrinda Ravi Kumar, Bengaluru
Wilson Gangmei, social activist, Imphal
Xonzoi Barbora, Melbourne
Yomah Konyak, Dimapur
Zoya Hasan, Professor Emerita, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi/NCR

The Pegasus Project is a collaborative investigation that involves more than 80 journalists from 17 news organisations in 10 countries coordinated by Forbidden Stories with the technical support of Amnesty International’s Security Lab. Read all our coverage here.

SC Pays Tribute to 77 Lawyers of SCBA Who Died Due to Covid-19

A bench headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana expressed condolence on behalf of the Supreme Court judges.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday paid tribute to 77 advocates of the apex court lawyers’ body, who lost their lives due to COVID-19.

At the start of the day’s proceedings, a bench headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana expressed condolence on behalf of the Supreme Court judges.

We are informed by the Secretary of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) that 77 advocates who were members of SCBA have lost their lives to COVID-19. We pay our deepest condolences. We will observe two-minute silence for the departed souls, Chief Justice Ramana said.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranaryanan, who was appearing in the first matter listed for the day, appreciated the gesture of the top court and said, We appreciate the noble and necessary gesture of the court. We know many court staff also lost their lives, we express our condolences to the departed souls .

Senior advocate Vikas Singh, who is the president of the SCBA and appeared in the next matter, said members of the bar appreciate the gesture of the court to pay tribute to the lawyers, who have lost their lives.

The apex court reopened on Monday after summer vacation.

As CJI, Justice Ramana Needs to Act Like Former Election Commissioner T.N. Seshan

History will not be kind to the Indian judicial leadership of recent years, for it has undermined public trust in the institution. Ramana has his task cut out to restore the lost public faith in the judiciary.

On Tuesday, the President of India named Justice N.V. Ramana as the next chief justice of India. He will take up office on April 24. His appointment comes at a time when it is clear that the judiciary is in the throes of extreme confusion over its role as mandated by Article 32 of the Indian constitution.

Can India’s citizens hope that under a new chief, the apex court will attend to the urgent task of restoring public confidence and trust in the judiciary as the empowered custodian of constitutional values and virtues?

For now, the only hope citizens can entertain is that the next CJI will not be another S.A. Bobde, Ranjan Gogoi, or Dipak Misra. But can we hope that Ramana will do to the office of the chief justice what T.N. Seshan did for the election commission when he overhauled the poll body and restored faith in the election process?

Also read: Andhra CM Jagan Declares War on Justice Ramana, Next-in-Line to be Chief Justice of India

The legend of T.N. Seshan

Before Seshan was chosen to preside over Nirvachan Sadan in 1990, he had earned a well-deserved reputation of being a competent but compliant and complicit bureaucrat, eager to attend to the whims and fancies of the political bosses. Once he entered high constitutional office, however, the same Seshan was a different man: he demonstrated a pronounced backbone and a certain kind of moral clarity. Every constitutional office carries with it institutional dharma and Seshan was conscious of his duty to explore the extent of the Election Commission’s mandate, prescribed in Article 324 of the constitution.

T.N. Seshan in 1994. Photo: Rishabh Tatiraju/Wikimedia Commons CC BY-SA 3.0

Before Seshan, all his predecessors were happy to let the Election Commission function as a glorified extension counter of the prime minister’s office. The EC had no pretension of being a growling watchdog over the fairness of the electoral process; but, to be fair, neither was the ruling party of the day overly demanding. The election process was undoubtedly flawed and often unsavoury but it did produce outcomes that would reflect, mostly, the prevailing political realities in constituency after constituency. No one felt that the elections were stolen or manipulated.

As chief election commissioner, Seshan promised that he would clean up the election process, minimise the role of violence and money power, and make it a reasonably fair game. Above all, he proceeded on the morally powerful proposition that a ruling party should not be able to use its incumbency at the Centre or in a state to perpetuate itself in power.

A single man was thus able to renew the legitimacy of the entire electoral process, which in turn enabled perennially squabbling politicians to acquire a reasonable amount of democratic respectability. There is no doubt that this outcome helped introduce the painful but necessary change of direction in the management of the national economy.

Can the judiciary hope for a similar transformative Seshanite experience under a new CJI? Certainly, citizens have the right to expect such a change.

Also read: T. N. Seshan, the Unyielding Force That Cleansed India’s Elections

Headstart for Justice Ramana

Justice Ramana starts with an advantage. Now that the Supreme Court has cleared him of the charges of impropriety levelled by the Andhra Pradesh chief minister, his potential weakness has been converted into a source of strength. While questions have been raised about the transparency of the court’s ‘in house process’, the fact remains that he has formally been exonerated and gets to start his new innings with a clean slate. He is thus less likely to be vulnerable to pressure from the Shah and Shahenshah regime in Delhi during his tenure as CJI.

The Ramana announcement has come at a time when the two senior-most executive functionaries are embroiled in demeaning campaign rhetoric, behaving like the kind of street-brawlers found in every mohalla in Uttar Pradesh or Bihar. The incoming chief justice cannot possibly allow himself to be overly impressed with the grandiloquent claims and proclamations made by the two gentlemen when they arrogantly position themselves on to a superior moral perch. The least that is expected of any constitutional functionary is that she/he not be easily impressed with bombast.

Also read: Restoring Public Trust in the Indian Judiciary Calls for More Scrutiny, Not Less

The Ramana announcement is also an occasion to remind ourselves that a judicial appointment — or for that matter, any other office — is not a personal favour from an imperial seat. The Supreme Court derives its mandate and legitimacy from the constitution of India, and not from the benevolence of this or that demagogue who may happen to have hoodwinked the electorate.

Justice Ramana must be aware that the last time the apex court denied the regime something it desperately wanted was when it ruled against the National Judicial Appointments Commission in 2015. The judges knew that the institution’s autonomous existence was sought to be constricted.

That bruising confrontation left the judicial brass rattled and shaken, and soon the institution settled down for some kind of an entente with an unforgiving regime. The standard operating procedure becomes one where the higher judiciary would occasionally make a caustic comment against this or that executive functionary – though never against the principal demagogue – but never become the source of discomfort, policy-wise or politically, to the imperial darbar.

Judicial pusillanimity

Justice Ramana will take over as CJI at a time when entrenched judicial pusillanimity has worked its way down to all other constitutional institutions. To be fair, they cannot be faulted for having noticed that the apex court has abandoned its role as preserver of constitutional equilibrium.

Because of this judicial over-indulgence, a maximalist government has been allowed to use, misuse and abuse the Indian state’s instruments of coercion to manufacture for itself extreme political dominance of the kind India has not seen for decades, if ever. Granted, it is the very nature of political power to maximise itself, but it is also the very essence of institutional arrangements in a democratic system to see to it that no authority elevates itself above the mechanics and protocols of accountability.

Supreme Court of India.

It is possible that this pusillanimity is the product of some kind of institutional predilection rather than individual cowardice. Perhaps the judicial elite in the country has acquired a new philosophical outlook; it is conceivable that individually and collectively the honourable judges have concluded that it is not the judiciary’s business to position itself as an overseer of the government’s morals and manners.

Many of them may individually subscribe to the correctness and justness of the claims of majoritarian politics. Or they may believe that it is not their job to maintain fairness, balance and reasonableness in the Republic.

Mercifully, this outlook has not yet become a collective judicial orientation. Should it become a working philosophy, it would be a betrayal of Article 32 and all that flows from that provision.

History will not be kind to the judicial leadership of recent years. It is now up to the incoming chief justice to decide whether he wants to refurbish the judiciary’s image. He can do so only if he settles down to become an apprentice Seshan.

Harish Khare is a journalist who lives and works in Delhi.

Jagan v Justice Ramana: Former CJ of Andhra HC Wants SC to Quash Probe Against His Phone Chat

In a petition before the Supreme Court, Justice V. Eswaraiah has challenged the probe as violation of natural justice.

New Delhi: The ongoing controversy over Andhra Pradesh chief minister Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy’s letter to Chief Justice of India S.A. Bobde making serious allegations against Justice N.V. Ramana of the Supreme Court has taken a curious twist with a fresh special leave petition being filed in the apex court by a former chief justice of the Andhra Pradesh high court, seeking to quash a probe into his casual phone conversation.

Justice V. Eswaraiah, who became a judge of the Andhra Pradesh high court in 1999, retired as its acting chief justice in 2013. In September that year, the then UPA government at the Centre made him chairperson of the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) for a term of three years. He has been in the forefront of the backward classes movement in the state since then. The Backward Classes, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Minority Student Federation is one such endeavour, which got his blessings. He is also a prominent critic of the former chief minister, N. Chandrababu Naidu, who he alleged, had scuttled the chances of two backward class advocates and two Scheduled Caste advocates from being appointed as high court judges.

In August 2017, Justice J. Chelameswar pointed out that Justice Ramana’s letter to the CJI on why these proposed appointees lacked merit appeared identical to the letter Naidu write to Union law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad.

In July, the Backward Classes, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Minority Student Federation filed a writ petition in the high court seeking a probe into the untimely death of the registrar-general (in-charge) of the high court, B. Rajasekhar, and of another employee due to COVID-19, and of 30 more employees being tested positive for the same. While Rajasekhar belonged to the Backward Classes, the other employee belonged to a Scheduled Tribe.

The Federation alleged that on May 8 this year, three judges were sworn-in at a small, closed air-conditioned court hall packed full of advocates, VIPs, family members and all judges on the bench, attenders behind their back, without even wearing masks or maintaining social distancing. The registrar-general, the petition alleged, was made to work up to 3 am to arrange the swearing-in ceremony. After the ceremony, the judges, staff and several advocates had tea in the judges lounge, the petition further alleged, and posed for photographs without wearing masks or maintaining social distance norms.

The petition alleges that Rajasekhar was put to tremendous work pressure by Chief Justice J.K. Maheshwari. Despite his illness, Rajasekhar had to come to the court to finalise the transfers of judicial officers, which could have been postponed considering his illness, it is further alleged. He collapsed in court on June 24, and died while on the way to hospital.

The high court registry, in its reply affidavit in the case, denied the allegations. In paragraph 13 of the affidavit, the high court registrar-general made allegations against the high court itself, wherein she criticised the September 4, 2019 recommendation of its then acting chief justice backing the Jagan government’s decision to make Justice Eswaraiah chairperson of the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission despite the fact that the Supreme Court’s collegium had already recommended the appointment of a regular chief justice of the high court.

The same paragraph accuses Justice Eswaraiah of maligning the high court and wanting to support the state government under the cover of the BC Association, and blames the state government for “not happily accepting the verdicts of the high court given in various cases against” it.

The high court later agreed to withdraw this paragraph.

Andhra HC ordered a probe into phone conversation

During the pendency of this petition, a suspended district munsif magistrate of Andhra Pradesh, S. Ramakrishna, filed an intervention application in which he annexed the recording of a private conversation between Justice Eswaraiah and himself. The conversation was about many things, including the pending petition before the high court seeking a probe into Rajasekhar’s death, as well as the “misconduct” of a sitting judge of the Supreme Court. The sitting judge, the leaked conversation makes it clear, is Justice Ramana.

Justice Eswaraiah’s grievance is that the high court, without even issuing notice to him, proceeded to order an enquiry into the conversation on the basis that it disclosed a “conspiracy” to malign the chief justice of Andhra Pradesh, and a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court, and therefore, interpreted it as a plot against the judiciary. He also alleged that Ramakrishna defamed him by leaking the conversation.

Also Read: Andhra CM Jagan Declares War on Justice Ramana, Next-in-Line to be Chief Justice of India

Justice Eswaraiah contends that he had publicly spoken about the so-called “misconduct” of Justice Ramana and his “nexus” with the erstwhile government in the state led by Naidu. Secondly, the “misconduct” was the subject matter of an enquiry by the cabinet sub-committee regarding dubious property transactions for unlawful gain. This “conspiracy”, Justice Eswaraiah discloses, is the subject matter of a First Information Report, which names Dammalapati Srinivas, former additional advocate general, (who was later appointed as advocate general) and 12 other accused, including two daughters of Justice Ramana.

Justice Eswaraiah, therefore, has submitted that it is legitimate for him to seek any further information about the controversy which is already in the public domain from “anyone who might be privy to it”.

“Terming such a conversation to be some sort of a criminal conspiracy to destabilise the judiciary which needs an investigation is totally unwarranted”, he has claimed. The constitution of such an enquiry committee – led by former Supreme Court judge, Justice R.V. Raveendran – without notice to him, and without allowing the intervention of the suspended magistrate (with whom Justice Eswaraiah had the phone conversation, which was leaked) was against natural justice, he has submitted.

Dubious precedent cited by high court

Curiously, the high court, in its order setting up the inquiry into the leaked conversation, has relied as precedent on the Supreme Court setting up a similar commission (headed by Justice A.K. Patnaik) to unravel the “larger conspiracy” behind the sexual harassment allegations made by a Supreme Court employee against the then Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi.

Although this commission had submitted its report, the Supreme Court chose not to divulge it to the public, or hear the matter further, despite a clear order by the court on the judicial side to the registrar to list it for hearing. Therefore, to cite this as a precedent to suggest that it is also the solemn duty of the high court to unravel the truth, exposes the hypocrisy behind the decision.

The Supreme Court had dismissed concerns, while setting up the Patnaik commission, that parallel inquiries into the sexual harassment allegations against the sitting Chief Justice of India might not facilitate an independent probe. Expectedly, the in-house inquiry committee headed by Justices S.A. Bobde, Indira Banerjee and Indu Malhotra gave a clean chit to Chief Justice Gogoi, by dismissing the allegations against him, without sharing the report with the complainant. The reinstatement of the dismissed employee, who was the complainant in the case, showed that her allegations, despite the in-house committee’s findings, could well be true.

In his petition, Justice Eswaraiah wants the Supreme Court to examine whether the high court is justified in ordering an enquiry into a recorded private conversation between two individuals on their mobile phones even though the individuals are not parties to the proceedings before the high court in a pending case, and the conversation has no relevance to it. He has also sought to know whether the high court can order such an enquiry based on an intervention by a third party when it is not even allowed.

Justice Eswaraiah, therefore, has sought an interim stay on the high court’s order dated August 13 directing the enquiry into the contents of the pen drive leaking the conversation submitted to the court in Ramakrishna’s application. The outcome of this case may have implications on how the CJI decides Jagan’s letter to him against Justice Ramana.

Jagan Going Public With Allegations Against Justice N.V. Ramana Splits SC Bar

As SCBA executive committee (E.C.) passes resolution condemning Andhra CM’s letter to CJI Bobde, its president, Dushyant Dave protests against E.C.’s move.

New Delhi: Andhra Pradesh chief minister Jagan Mohan Reddy’s open letter to Chief Justice of India S.A. Bobde making allegations against Justice N.V. Ramana – next-in-line to be CJI in April 2021 – has led to a schism of sorts within the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA).

In a resolution that was signed by its acting hony. secretary, Rohit Pandey, the SCBA simply says that the executive committee held its meeting on October 16, 2020 which “strongly condemned” Reddy’s action in placing his letter to the CJI in the public domain. “Such actions by constitutional functionaries are opposed to conventions, causing serious inroads impacting the independence of the judiciary as enshrined in the Constitution of India”, the resolution concludes.

The Wire understands from its sources that the EC met virtually and that the resolution was approved by a majority of its members. The EC’s strength is 20 members. Of them, 16 attended the virtual meeting, and others sought leave of absence as some were not in town, according to the SCBA’s vice-president, senior advocate, Kailash Vasdev.

As the minutes of the meeting have not been uploaded on the SCBA’s website, the list of 16 members who attended the virtual meeting is not immediately available.

Chander Uday Singh, one of the senior executive members, who supported the resolution told The Wire: “My understanding is that it was passed unanimously by all present at the meeting without a single dissent.”

However, The Wire has learned that the SCBA president, Dushyant Dave strongly dissented from the resolution.

Dushyant Dave dissents

Dave, in a communication addressed to Rohit Pandey, stated: “I am really sorry at your mail [informing him about the adoption of the resolution by the EC]. I have continuously refused to be part of this resolution and have not participated in any consultation with you. I strongly oppose this resolution in principle.”

Dave continued: “We have no idea about the truthfulness or otherwise of [Jagan’s] allegations. Truth will emerge once the inquiry, if any is done. At this stage, we would be pre-empting the inquiry. I am sure at the end of inquiry truth will emerge and if allegations are found false, SC must initiate contempt proceedings against the CM. Today, it is premature to pass the resolution much less the kind you all propose”.

Dave went into the recent past wherein the Supreme Court was caught in many controversies, but has not recovered from them unblemished. He told Pandey in his official communication:

“You must remember that the judiciary is one institution which is completely opaque and no action is ever taken against erring Judges. The Supreme Court is also not open and transparent. In the suicide note of Kalikho Pul (former Arunachal Pradesh CM), two Judges were named specifically, who later became the CJs of India. In the sexual harassment complaint by a hapless lady, CJ Gogoi was directly implicated. The SC conducted a “wishy-washy” inquiry and gave him a clean chit. She was dismissed and arrested in a false criminal case. Later, the case was dropped as police found no evidence to proceed and complainant withdrew complaint. The reference to Justice Patnaik to inquire into larger conspiracy remains in limbo as his report is not made public. Ultimately, the lady has been reinstated in service with full back wages, proving her innocence and her charge.

“Yet, Bench and Bar have remained moot spectators.

“There are many disquieting developments taking place in the court daily and yet no voice is raised. Every now and then I get complaints from young lawyers that their matters don’t get listed while those of influential AORs get listed. I intervene to help them.

“What does it all go to show?

“I think Judges have lot of explaining to do. Yet, we the Bar remain silent spectators. This damages the great institution of the SC instead of improving it. We must introspect as to how we can strengthen the court and justice delivery system.

“But passing the resolution is simply not a step in that direction. I place on record my strong reservation on the same and regret deeply my inability to join you Friends!”

If Dave’s arguments against the merits of the EC’s resolution are valid, then the EC’s claim that Jagan’s letter to the CJI breaches “convention” which causes serious inroads impacting the “independence of the judiciary” may also be open to debate.

Does transparency weaken judicial independence?

As the resolution makes it clear, it is not against Jagan’s letter as such, but disagrees with his decision to place it in the public domain. Does the EC then suggest that by being transparent regarding his letter to the CJI, a constitutional functionary like the Andhra chief minister, breached some ‘convention’ and thus adversely impacted the independence of the judiciary?

What if Jagan had not shared his correspondence with the CJI with the media, but leaked it unofficially, would the SCBA still have blamed him? What if Jagan’s letter to the CJI remained confidential for ever – as Kalikho Pul’s suicide note did, till The Wire published it in February 2017 – and the CJI too ignored it? Would that prospect provide a guarantee of the independence of the judiciary?

It is clear that various professional bodies, such as the Delhi High Court Bar Association, Bar Council of India, and the Tamil Nadu Advocates Association, like the SCBA, have expressed similar concerns over Jagan’s letter, without shedding light on how the placing of his letter in the public domain would impact the independence of the judiciary. Those who value transparency, on the contrary, would suggest, however, that the independence of the judiciary would be strengthened if by placing Jagan’s letter to the CJI in the public domain, the higher judiciary may come under compulsion to come clean, and in the process, enhance its credibility, and as a corollary, its independence.

Ball in CJI Bobde’s court

As the senior lawyer Sriram Panchu has noted, the onus is now on CJI Bobde “to evolve a fair and transparent process which enables Justice Ramana to clear his name; brotherly absolution and Pandora’s boxes will cause damage to both man and institution.”

Like Dave, Panchu too made reference to the court’s recent past. “Here one may express an anxiety which is dogging us for quite some time about Chief Justices of India falling short of the standards of integrity and probity,” he wrote. “The office of the CJI is the most august one — pater familas of the legal system, master of the roster, decisive say in appointment of the next generations of judges — it does not get more powerful. We deserve to get the best CJI we can get.”

Andhra CM Jagan Declares War on Justice Ramana, Next-in-Line to be Chief Justice of India

In a letter to CJI S.A. Bobde, Y. Jagan Mohan Reddy accused Justice N.V. Ramana of corruption and of conspiring against his government on behalf of TDP leader Chadra Babu Naidu. The letter is dated October 6, the same day Jagan met Prime Minister Modi in Delhi.

Vijayawada: Andhra Pradesh chief minister Jaganmohan Reddy’s ongoing confrontation with the higher judiciary took a dramatic turn Saturday evening when he levelled serious allegations against Justice N.V. Ramana of the Supreme Court – the judge who is due to become the next chief justice of India (CJI) – as well as the chief justice and several other judges of the Andhra high court.

Reddy spelt out his allegations in a letter to CJI S.A. Bobde – perhaps the first time in the republic’s history that a chief minister has formally accused a sitting member of the higher judiciary of political bias and even corruption.

The move comes days after Reddy met with Prime Minister Narendra Modi on October 6, and with Union home minister Amit Shah a few days earlier.

At a press briefing here on October 10, the chief minister’s principal advisor, Ajeya Kallam, distributed copies of Jagan Reddy’s letter – dated October 6, 2020 – and also read out a note in which the chief minister alleged that Justice Ramana had used his influence with the erstwhile N. Chandra Babu Naidu-led Telugu Desam Party (TDP) government in the state to favour his daughters.

Since this specific allegation figures in the FIR that was registered last month on the Amaravati land allotment issue and which the AP high court has injuncted the media from reporting, The Wire is refraining from providing any details of the charges. In another order, the high court also put on hold a report submitted by the cabinet sub-committee of the Reddy government on various acts of commission and omission of the previous TDP government.

According to Kallam, the Andhra Pradesh government believed that Justice Ramana has played a crucial role in swaying judicial appointments in the state courts, which Reddy believes was done to swing decisions in favour of TDP leaders who are facing multiple corruption charges. He claimed that the Jagan Reddy government has established through a probe that former chief minister Naidu and many others associated with his party had amassed “huge wealth” by “illegal means”.

The media note said that Justice Ramana and his “cohorts” had allegedly acted against his government. The Andhra Pradesh government further accused the Supreme Court judge of sharing a close relationship with the former TDP chief minister. “I am making this statement with utmost responsibility. I may only bring it to your notice that a former judge of the honourable Supreme Court, Justice Chelameswar, placed this fact on record with EVIDENCE,” Reddy’s letter said, while emphasising Justice Ramana’s alleged proximity to Naidu.

The evidence the chief minister referred to is the fact that the opinion Justice Ramana expressed in a letter to the CJI in 2017 about the suitability of certain judges for the AP high court was identical to what Naidu had also written about them as chief minister.

Kallam, who served as chief secretary during the Naidu government, told reporters that “the government deemed it fit to speak to ensure that dignity of all institutions of the state is preserved”. After reading out statement, he wound up his media interaction without taking any questions from the media. Initially, there was a talk of the chief minister himself holding the media meet but the job at the last minute was entrusted to Kallam.

In his letter to Chief Justice Bobde, Jagan Reddy cited instances of how Naidu was allegedly scuttlings investigations and functioning by using his “cohorts” in the state judiciary. Reddy’s note alleged that Justice Ramana helped the Naidu regime handpick six out of an eleven-member panel of members from the high court bar and promoted them as acting judges.

“Sri Justice N.V Ramana has been influencing the sittings of the High Court including the roster of a few Honourable Judges and instances of how matters important to Telugu Desam Party have been allocated to a few Honourbale Judges…,” the Chief Minister alleged in the letter, adding that he has annexed documents which show the “nexus” between Justice Ramana, TDP, and a few judges of the high court.

“With a sense of pain and anguish at the politicisation of institutions personally monitored by Sri N. Chandrababu Naidu through honourable sitting Judges of Supreme Court, facts would clearly demonstrate that the august institution of the High Court is being used to destabilize and topple the democratically elected Government of the State of A.P. with indelible trail leading back to the overt and covert actions of Sri N. Chandrababu Naidu through Honourable Sri Justice N. V. Ramana,” Reddy said in his letter.

The ‘media note’ issued by Reddy made further allegations:

“Since the new government undertook the enquiry into the actions of Sri N. Chandrababu Naidu in his regime between 2014-2019, it is now clear, that Sri Justice N. V. Ramana, started influencing the course of administration of justice in the State, through the Chief Justice Sri Jitendra Kumar Maheswari.”
“Roster for sitting of the Honourable Judges, whereby important matters of policy and protection for Chandrababu Naidu’s interests were posted before a few Honourable Judges – Justice A.V. Sesha Sai, Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy, Justice D.V. S.S. Somayyajulu, Justice D. Ramesh.”

The High Court has passed nearly 100 orders negating a slew of key decisions of the Jaganmohan Reddy government in the last 18 months of his rule. The decisions put on hold by the High Court include decentralisation of the administration by way of shifting capital out of Amaravati, abolition of the AP Legislative Council and the removal of AP State Election Commission N. Ramesh Kumar.

“The government decided to demolish encroachments on the river bed to safeguard river ecology but the process was put on hold by the court,” the media note said.

Cases against Jagan

The opposition TDP says Jaganmohan Reddy, who assumed the office of chief minister on May 30, 2019, has decided to take on the judiciary head on in the light of his own cases expected to come up for final hearing shortly. The TDP’s former vice-chairman of the state planning board, C. Kutumbha, in a TV discussion, accused Reddy of playing martyr by blaming the opposition parties and judiciary for his own “sins”.

The TDP said that the YSR Congress chief is trying his best to ward off his imminent arrest in the cases pending trial in the CBI and ED special courts. In the process, Reddy is trying to scuttle the prospects of Ramana becoming CJI by dragging him and his family members into “fictitious” land scams in Amaravati, the party charged.

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s direction to the chief justices of high courts to adjudicate over 4,000 criminal cases pending against sitting and former lawmakers, the Telangana high court directed the CBI special court handling Jagan’s (disproportionate assets cases to complete its work at the earliest. Reddy was charged as a prime accused in several cases relating to assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and money laundering by the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate.

The CBI had in 2012 filed charges against Reddy, accusing him of amassing more than Rs 1 lakh crore of wealth by misusing the office of his late father, Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy, who was then the CM of undivided AP.

Reddy was arrested in May 2012 and released on bail 16 months later. Jagan fought two general elections in 2014 and 2019 when he was out on bail.

Andhra Pradesh Congress Committee (APCC) legal cell spokesman V. Gurnadham said the manner in which the Reddy government is headed for a collision with courts and judiciary is unprecedented in the history of Andhra Pradesh.

The full text of chief minister Jagan Mohan Reddy’s letter to Chief Justice of India S.A. Bobde is appended below:

Andhra CM Jagan Mohan Reddy… by The Wire

SC Sets up 5-Judge Constitution Bench to Hear Pleas Challenging Article 370 Move

The five-judge bench, headed by Justice N.V. Ramana, will examine the constitutional validity of the scrapping of the article’s provisions and the subsequent presidential orders on it.

New Delhi The Supreme Court on Saturday set up a five-judge constitution bench headed by Justice N.V. Ramana which will commence hearing from October 1 on a batch of pleas mounting legal challenges to the Centre’s decision to read down Article 370 that gave special status to Jammu and Kashmir.

The bench also comprises justices S.K. Kaul, R. Subhash Reddy, B.R. Gavai and Suryakant.

The hearing by the constitution bench will commence from October 1, an official source said.

The five-judge bench will examine the constitutional validity of the scrapping of the article’s provisions and the subsequent presidential orders on it, the source added.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi on August 28 had referred the matter to a five-judge constitution bench.

Several petitions have been filed challenging the Centre’s decision to scrap Article 370 provisions and bifurcating the state into Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. The UTs will come into being on October 31.

Petitions have also been filed by the National Conference, the Sajjad Lone-led JK People’s Conference and several other individuals, including the first plea filed by advocate M L Sharma.

The petition on behalf of the NC was filed by Lok Sabha MPs Mohammad Akbar Lone and Justice (retd) Hasnain Masoodi. Lone is a former speaker of the J&K assembly and Masoodi a retired judge of the Jammu and Kashmir high court. In 2015, he had ruled that Article 370 was a permanent feature of the constitution.

Also read: Article 370 and The Paradox of Kashmir’s Accession

Other pleas include the one filed by a group of former defence officers and bureaucrats. They have also sought directions declaring the presidential orders of August 5 “unconstitutional, void and inoperative”.

The plea was filed by professor Radha Kumar, a former member of the Home Ministry’s Group of Interlocutors for Jammu and Kashmir (2010-11), former IAS officer of J&K cadre Hindal Haidar Tyabji, Air Vice Marshal (retd) Kapil Kak, Major General (retd) Ashok Kumar Mehta, former Punjab-cadre IAS officer Amitabha Pande and former Kerala-cadre IAS officer Gopal Pillai, who retired as the Union home secretary in 2011.

A petition has also been filed by bureaucrat-turned-politician Shah Faesal, along with his party colleague and former Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union (JNUSU) leader Shehla Rashid.

There are other petitions challenging the Centre’s decision on Article 370.

The apex court on August 28 had listed the petitions connected with Article 370 and issues arising after its reading down.

The NC leaders submitted that the Presidential Orders paved the way for application of entire provisions of the constitution in Jammu and Kashmir and also have the effect of nullifying Article 35A and completely scrapped Article 370.

While challenging the Centre’s decisions to scrap provisions of the Article 370 that accorded special status to Jammu and Kashmir, and dividing it into two Union Territories, the two MPs have sought a direction to declare the Act and the Presidential Orders as “unconstitutional, void and inoperative”.

They submitted that the apex court now has to examine whether the Union government can “unilaterally” unravel the unique federal scheme under the cover of President’s rule while undermining crucial elements of due process and rule of law.

“This case, therefore, goes to the heart of Indian federalism, democratic processes and role of the apex court as the guardian of the federal structure,” the petition said.

They submitted that Article 370 was extensively considered as carefully drafted in order to ensure the peaceful and democratic accession of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir to the Indian Union.

The two contended that the Presidential Orders and the new legislation unconstitutionally undermine the scheme of Article 370.

(PTI)

SC ‘Interfering’ With Poll Process in Karnataka Is ‘Constitutionally Strange’: Congress

The statement came after the EC told the apex court that assembly by-polls in 15 seats in the state would be deferred till pleas of disqualified MLAs are decided.

New Delhi: The Congress on Thursday said it is “constitutionally strange” that the Supreme Court is “interfering” with election process in Karnataka, after the Election Commission told the apex court that assembly by-polls in 15 seats in the state would be deferred till pleas of disqualified MLAs are decided.

Congress chief spokesperson Randeep Surjewala said an elected government in Karnataka was unseated by a group of “defectors” and were rightfully disqualified by the then Speaker K.R. Ramesh Kumar in accordance with his jurisdiction under the Constitution.

“Until today, the Supreme Court has not stayed the order of the Speaker. That means, the order must be, on the face of it, correct. After all, if the order disqualifying the defectors, who were lured by money and muscle power, was wrong, then the Supreme Court would be right in staying it.

“Once, the order stands, these people stand disqualified and the process of reelection has to come in play. To defer an ongoing process of election is itself unprecedented,” he told reporters.

Earlier in the day, the Election Commission (EC) told the Supreme Court it would defer the upcoming bypolls on these 15 seats till the apex court finally decides the pleas filed by 17 MLAs who have challenged their disqualification.

The poll panel had last week announced by-polls to 15 assembly seats in Karnataka and had said that voting would be held on October 21 and counting of votes on October 24.

The EC submitted this after a bench headed by Justice N V Ramana said it would be “better” if the pleas of the disqualified MLAs were decided.

Surjewala said the law laid down by the Supreme Court in last 70 years is that they will not interfere with the process of election.

“Now, the Supreme Court itself is interfering with the process of ongoing election as notified by (the) Election Commission. To me, it is constitutionally strange. But, the Supreme Court is right because they are final and there is no appeal beyond there,” the he said.

Congress leader K C Venugopal, however, said the decision of the Supreme Court to not interfere with election process is in the spirit of the Constitution.

“SC not only declined to grant stay to the disqualification, it decided to treat the merit of the matter independently. One wonders at the wisdom of Election Commission as it appears to have postponed the elections under instructions of the government to favour their agenda,” he said on Twitter.

(PTI)