Telangana HC slams Medak MP Raghunandan for ‘criminal contempt’ against judiciary

The panel, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao, took on file a suo moto criminal contempt case against the MP based on a letter addressed by the single judge. It was stated in the letter that the MP held a press conference on August 24 and questioned the action of the court in granting a “stay of demolition” in a petition filed by N Convention moved by way of a house motion.

It is also stated that the alleged contemnor asked how the court could grant a “stay of demolition” when in 2014 another judge of the High Court had directed demolition of subject property.

The judges should not take up/hear matters in a hurried matter merely because they are moved by way of a house motion and grant stay, that the order of stay was passed injudiciously without first enquiring whether an order of demolition was passed against the construction of the subject property by the very same court at an earlier point of time, that the judges should remove the ribbons of blindfolding from their eyes and see what was happening around them and then only pass orders, Raghunandan Rao said according to the letter.

The letter stated that omnibus allegations were made against the judiciary that the orders of stay are being granted by the courts on advocates filing miscellaneous petitions stating sundry reasons, that when once such stay orders are obtained, the matter does not see the light of the day and questioned as to why the registry was not listing those cases and called upon the Chief Justice to look into the same.

The letter also revealed that on a reporter expressing concern over the remarks made by the alleged contemnor, Raghunandan Rao went on to state that he was justified as it had to be reported verbatim as he was not speaking against the dignity of the judiciary rather the ‘judges should know’ indicating that the judges should learn and know law.

The single judge said that the alleged contemnor harboured a loathing towards the judiciary and that he intended to publicise his sentiments by making statements which scandalise the courts in the eyes of society. The conduct of the respondent in holding successive press conferences and interviews ere contemptuous statements against judiciary, and, if ignored, would not only affect the majesty of the court but also hinder the enforcement of rule of law.

The panel, after considering the contents of the letter said, prima facie, the action of the respondent amounts to criminal contempt and accordingly ordered notices.