In an unprecedented manner, the executive and judiciary in Andhra Pradesh are on a collision path, openly targeting each other. An uneasy calm that prevailed for months has ended and the ruling YSR Congress on Thursday launched a direct attack against the AP High Court.
Apparently following instructions of Chief Minister Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, the ruling party floor leaders in both Houses of Parliament, P. Mithun Reddy and V. Vijayasai Reddy, sought to draw the highest law-making body’s attention to what they described as injustice meted out in the hands of judiciary.
“The AP judiciary is not impartial and it has to be stopped,” said Vijayasai Reddy in the Rajya Sabha. Though he was taking part in a debate on Covid, the YSRC Parliamentary party leader went on to describe the “onslaught of judiciary” on his party’s government.
Party MPs also staged a dharna in front of the Mahatma Gandhi statue on Parliament premises, demanding a CBI probe into the Amaravati scam, a plea that had been rejected outright by the High Court. “It is unfortunate that courts are hindering the investigation into scams. As lawmakers, we have the right to raise the issue in Parliament and speak about the functioning of the judiciary in AP,” he told reporters.
Back in Vijayawada, senior YSRC leader and municipal minister Botsa Satyanarayana termed the gag order of the High Court as unfair and wondered how courts could announce that incumbent governments have no right to probe the policy decisions their predecessors particularly when the people in power had got pecuniary benefits out of those decisions.
AP High Court unhappy with YSRC’s criticism
The ruling party outbursts came a day after the High Court stalled the probe into the alleged Amaravati land scam in which some influential people, allegedly privy to confidential information, had acquired lands in proposed capital region for a cheaper price.
The AP High Court was unhappy over the ruling party leaders criticising its judgments and even its sympathisers hurling abuses against judges. At one stage, the Registrar General highlighted in her affidavit in a case that the state government was not happy with the judgments. Later, she amended the affidavit replacing the word “government” with “some ruling party leaders”.
