VIJAYAWADA: Justice K Chandru, former judge of the Madras High Court whose legal battle against caste discrimination during his days as a lawyer inspired the acclaimed movie, Jai Bhim, Friday opined that the judiciary in Andhra Pradesh is “going beyond its limits and powers.”
He was speaking at a programme organised by the AP Civil Liberties Association and Kula Vipaksa Porata Samithi on the occasion of World Human Rights Day.
Recalling his battle against caste discrimination, Justice Chandru said, “We need judges who will protect the rights of the people. Now, what do we see in AP? ... today, an elected government is fighting for survival not from rivals, not from political rivals or mass movements, but from the judiciary itself!’’
Citing a few cases, he questioned, “an FIR, registered against a land scandal, was stayed by the High Court... some people take to social media, make postings .. a CBI case is registered. Four people were arrested and the CBI has gone to America to find two others! Now, where do we go?’’ Justice Chandru observed that the judiciary, whose duty is to defend the rights of the people, “is doing something different, which is not expected.”
Referring to an instance of a division bench hearing a habeas corpus petition, Justice Chandru pointed out, “if the government or a department does not file a reply, costs can be imposed. Last month, the Supreme Court imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on the Tamil Nadu government in a human rights case because they did not file a reply.”
‘When govt told judges to recuse, they said there is nothing wrong in hearing’
“But, a division bench (in AP) writes an order, ‘By tomorrow, if there is no proper response, we will recommend President’s Rule in the State. Where do we get all this?’’ he said. Justice Chandru went on to add, “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. This (recommending for President’s Rule) is not an off-the-cuff remark. It was written in the judicial order itself.’’
Referring to the case related to the three capitals issue, Justice Chandru said the elected government brought a Bill, passed it in the Assembly and the same was challenged. “The full bench — two judges are allottees of land in Amaravati. For the first time, government files a petition ... not private parties ... that these two judges should not hear the case, saying the two judges constituting the full Bench should not hear the case because they were allottees of land in Amaravati. It was a genuine request. When the Andhra Pradesh government told the judges to recuse, they openly said there is nothing wrong in hearing the case.’’
Justice Chandru recalled that the judges had said they were paid by the State from the consolidated fund and would hear the case. “When the counsel asked for an order to that effect, the judges said the recusal petition will be decided with the main case, which means the government would not be in a position to challenge the order,” he said and narrated his own experience as a student when he asked an additional judge to recuse on the ground that his promotion would be dependent on the chief minister and the case at hand was against the government. Later, it was the same judge who had advised him to study law, Justice Chandru recalled.