New Delhi: The Supreme Court Thursday issued notice to Telugu Desam Party (TDP) leader Varla Ramaiah on an appeal filed by the Jagan Mohan Reddy government.
The state has challenged an Andhra Pradesh High Court ruling, which is based on a writ petition filed by Ramaiah, that stays the government’s orders to constitute a cabinet sub-committee to scrutinise decisions taken by the previous TDP regime and form an SIT to probe the alleged irregularities, including the Amaravati land scam.
A bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan agreed to hold a detailed hearing of the matter after it was argued that the impugned order was without any jurisdiction and passed on a petition that was bereft of any details.
The high court had, in its 16 September order, put on hold all proceedings initiated with regard to two government orders issued on 26 June 2019 and 21 February 2020, based on Ramaiah’s petition. Ramaiah is the TDP general secretary.
The TDP leader’s petition stated that the new government cannot be permitted to overturn the decisions of the previous government. Further, it held, the state, in exercise of its executive power, does not have inherent power to review.
The Andhra Pradesh government has assailed the high court (HC) order on several grounds in the top court.
The government appeal, filed last month, stated that the HC order was a clear transgression into the executive’s domain, was delivered on a petition filed by someone (Ramaiah) who did not have the locus standi, and mere constitution of a cabinet sub-committee does not result in all the erstwhile decisions being reviewed and revoked.
Also read: Jagan vs judiciary — a face-off which involves 100 high court orders & now a SC judge
‘Complaints against previous regime necessitated govt orders’
To defend the Andhra government, senior advocate Dushyant Dave quoted a Constitution Bench judgement of the Supreme Court delivered in 1965.
He argued the HC had failed to appreciate that the state issued the two government orders in exercise of its executive powers.
The petitioners before the HC were busy bodies, lacking bonafide credentials to file a petition, he added.
Dave also questioned the maintainability of the petition that invoked the writ jurisdiction of the court, which, the lawyer argued, can only be done when someone is personally affected by the state action.
Complaints relating to large-scale improprieties and acts of corruption on part of the erstwhile government necessitated the issuance of government orders, the senior lawyer submitted.
Dave also contested the charge of malafide intention, brought by the petitioners, against the government, saying the state had written to the Centre on 23 March, seeking a CBI probe into the alleged irregularities by the TDP government. However, it received no response.
‘Not reviewing all decisions of previous govt’
Dave insisted the state had followed the law as it did not order registration of criminal cases, but ordered the constitution of an SIT to probe the allegations.
He disputed the HC’s opinion that creating an SIT meant overturning decisions of the previous government, saying: “Only those matters will be pursued where there is credible evidence.”
“A mere constitution of a cabinet sub-committee by the state to review major policy decisions does not result in all the erstwhile decisions being reviewed and revoked,” stated the petition.
Therefore, at this stage, there is no scope for interference by the courts, it said. “It is only after a decision is taken to review a particular policy/decision can there be a challenge and adjudication as to whether the power was exercised in accordance with law,” the state contended in its appeal.
Also read: How Jagan is putting Andhra’s development in ‘jeopardy’ due to his obsession with Naidu