Retired judge of the Madras High Court K. Chandru has opined that the judiciary in Andhra Pradesh is “going beyond its limits and powers.”
Mr. Chandru was speaking at a programme organised by the A.P. Civil Liberties Association and the Kula Vivaksha Porata Samithi on the occasion of the World Human Rights Day here on Friday.
Charging the Andhra Pradesh High Court with “terrorising” the State government so much so that the latter had to repeal the three capitals Act, he wondered how two Judges could be a part of the full Bench of the high court hearing the petitions against the three capitals when they owned plots in Amaravati.
The State government had asked the Judges to recuse themselves from the case, saying they should not hear the case because they were allottees of land in Amaravati.
“It was a genuine request. The Judges, however, said there was nothing wrong as they were paid from the consolidated fund. When the counsel had asked for an order to that effect, the Judges said the recusal petition would be decided with the main case, which means the government will not be in a position to challenge the order,” Mr. Chandru said.
“But, a Division Bench (in A.P.) writes an order – By tomorrow, if there is no proper response, we will recommend President’s Rule in the State,” he said.
“Where do we get all this? This was not an off-the-cuff remark. It was written in the judicial order itself,” Mr. Chandru pointed out, adding, “It’s unheard of for a court to make a mention about bringing President’s Rule in a case between the State and an individual.”
“This is what I am worried about ... an FIR cannot be registered, social media posts cannot be tolerated, and President’s Rule is sought to be recommended in the State,” Mr. Chandru said.
Recalling his battle against caste discrimination, Mr. Chandru said, “We need Judges who will protect the rights of the people. Now, what do we see in Andhra Pradesh? An elected government is fighting for survival not from rivals, not from political rivals, or mass movements, but from the judiciary itself.”
