[Breaking] Serious allegations made against a sitting High Court Judge, Bench refuses to proceed for Contempt of Court

Must Read

An Analysis of Cyber Crimes in India

The term “Cyber Crime” is not defined in Indian law. We can attribute this to the variety and capricious...

Explained: Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2020

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought various widespread impacts on every sector of the country, whether it is the corporates...

An Analysis of the Supreme Court’s Guidelines on the Ambit of Maintenance in Matrimonial Cases

The Supreme Court has laid down guidelines in the Rajesh vs. Neha case relating to the ambit of maintenance...

Explained: The OTT Regulations and Their Impact on the Media Future in India

The regulation of content within OTT (Over-the-Top) media and other digital media have fallen under the purview of the...

Frustration of Lease in COVID-19 Times

Introduction The year 2020 has been the most unexpected and the year of most unprecedented events in the history of...

Do All Insults Come Under the Ambit of SC/ST Act as Offence?

Introduction The Honourable Supreme court of India held that all insults or intimidation are not an offence under the Scheduled...

Follow us

On 18.05.2020, the Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Hon’ble Justice K. Lakshman excused themselves from passing further orders in the case of Sripathi Panditharadhyula Sudeep Sharma v. the State of Telangana.

Brief facts of the case

This case is about a Writ Petition filed by the petitioners on 11.5.2020 against the fixation of fees for PG Medical Courses in Telangana. A Government Order (“G.O”) dated 14.04.2020 was issued by the State Government for the same.

The basis for the fee hike was the recommendations of Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (“TAFRC”). Through the G.O, a large hike in fee was permitted to be charged for PG Medical courses. It was in the range of 118% to 554% for the Private Medical Unaided Minority and Non-Minority Professional Institutions for the period 2020-2023.

A petition was then filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It prayed to the High Court, to issue a direction to set aside the said G.O. This was on the basis that the G.O is illegal and arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violates fundamental rights.

Timeline of events

17.03.2020 – Recommendation by the TAFRC to the State Government for the fee hike.

12.5.2020 – Roster notified by the Hon’ble Chief Justice that only this Division Bench will take up all Division Bench cases.

12.05.2020 – Chief Justice passes administrative order, states case as an urgent matter.

14.05.2020 – Case listed before Single Judge who directs posting this matter before Division Bench. Furthermore, the Division bench takes up the matter, asks for reasons of fee hike recommendation, and adjourns for next day at 10:30 am. Also, an undertaking was filed to present a soft copy of detailed reasons for the recommendation of the said fee hike.

15.05.2020 – At 10:15 am, the counsel for the TAFRC forwards only the table of fees proposed, without the reasons of TAFRC for the said fee hike. The bench requests the counsel for the TAFRC to make an available soft copy of the same by 1.30 pm through email. Matter adjourned to 2:30 pm.

15.05.2020 – At 10:34 am, Chairman of TAFRC (“Chairman”) forwards a memo to his counsel, who forwards the mail to the Bench at 11:01 am. This communication brought to notice of the Bench at 12 noon.

Arguments in the Court

Sri Sama Sandeep Reddy appeared for the Petitioners. Additional Advocate General appeared for the State of Telangana, and Sri A. Prabhakar for TAFRC.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners started the arguments. But the learned counsel for the TAFRC intervened and submitted that there is no urgency to hear this case on that day.

This argument was not accepted. This was because of the administrative order of the Hon’ble Chief Justice stating that the case is an ‘urgent case’.

Observations by the Bench

Although the impugned G.O stated that the fee fixed was as per the recommendations of the TAFRC, it did not disclose the reasons for such a hike.

Thus, the Bench felt that it is necessary to have a copy of the detailed reasons for such recommendations. It asked the counsel to send it by email to the court officers of the Bench.

The counsel for the TAFRC expressed some difficulty in furnishing it. Since a soft copy was sought, he gave the undertaking to furnish the same on 15.5.2020.

Since the TAFRC exercises quasi-judicial powers, its actions are amenable to judicial review. The Bench could not consider the matter without looking into such reasons given by the TAFRC.

Once again on 15.5.2020, the counsel for the TAFRC requested for adjournment on the ground that there is no urgency.

It is doubtful that between 10.30 am and 10.34 am on 15.5.2020, a mere 4 minutes, the memo running into 5 pages was dictated, printed and got signed by the Chairman. It also contained a reference to several past events.

The above timings of the events on 15.05.2020 show that by 10.34 am, the Chairman had prepared this Memo and sent it to his Counsel. It shows that he did so with a pre-determined view to pick up an issue with the Bench. And also to avoid hearing of this matter by this Bench.

The Memo

The Chairman, a retired judge of Hyderabad High Court, Justice P. Swaroop Reddy questioned the integrity of the independence and impartiality of Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao. He also defended his recommendations made to the Government. And further, questioned the locus standi of the petitioners to file the Petition.

Read the Full Memo

Allegations against Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Clarifications

The Chairman quoted two decisions of 2017. He stated that his recommendations for fee fixation of engineering courses were set aside by Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao. He points to the motives of the Justice for such orders.

The Bench states that the Chairman has a selective memory. This was because the above-stated orders were upheld by Division Bench. It consisted of the then Chief Justice T.B. Radhakrishnan and Justice Ramesh Ranganathan in appeals filed by the State Government. This was in the case of the State of Telangana and Ors. vs. Vasavi Academy of Education and Ors.

The said judgment affirmed by the Division Bench is proof that the order of Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao was not a motivating judgment against the Chairman or the TAFRC or the Government of Telangana.

The Chairman referred to the Contempt Case initiated in connection with the above cases.

The Bench states that the Chairman omits to state that the said case was closed more than 2 years ago.

The Chairman refers to a meeting with Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao at a dinner hosted by a retired High Court Judge.

The Bench Replied

The Bench calls it a figment of imagination as he does not give any date or year of the same. Also, Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao has no recollection of any interaction with the Chairman, at any such dinner.

Another Petition was dealing with the issue of surrender of PG Diploma seats by Medical colleges to get in return PG Medical seats. An interim order passed by another Division Bench of which Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao was a member, the Chairman complains that there wasn’t any mention about the fee hike for PG Medical courses.

The Bench states that case does not come within the purview of the TAFRC, as it deals with the surrender of PG Diploma seats. Also, the counsel for the State did not dispute the facts of the fee hike during the course of hearing of the said Petition. Moreover, it is the prerogative of the bench to decide what matters should be in a judicial order. The suggestions of the Chairman are unwarranted.

Contempt of Court

The Bench noted that the Chairman, in his capacity as a quasi-judicial authority, cannot in law, defend his decisions before the High Court by acting as a private litigant. A statutory authority like the Chairman cannot even challenge the adverse orders passed against him.

The Bench quoting the decision in In Re: Vijay Kurle and Ors, stated that the harsh language used in the Memo is not acceptable and that it amounts to interference with the administration of justice and also to Criminal Contempt of Court.

The Bench also relied on the statement of then Justice Indira Bannerjee in the case of R.K Anand v. Delhi High Court that condemned an attempt to Bench hunting.

Concluding observations by the Bench

The Bench opined that it is improper for the Chairman to refer to events and orders passed by Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao in the distant past in discharge of his constitutional duty. To decide disputes, sometimes the bench passes orders which are both against and also in favour of parties to a dispute.

The Bench said

“It would be difficult for any Judge to adjudicate any case, if every unsuccessful party in such case after the verdict is pronounced, imputes motives to the Judge who decided it.”

The bench further went on to mention that in various cases the State of Telangana has been successful before Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao.

Bench further states that

The Bench stated that the Chairman’s allegations omitted to mention that from 1.1.2019 (when the Telangana High Court started functioning) till 1.5.2020, Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao has dismissed 86% of the Contempt cases filed against Government Officials/ Employees of the State of Telangana. He has also allowed a mere 14% cases, that too, in cases where there was willful disobedience of the orders passed by the Court.

This High Court was also the common High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh and the State of Telangana from 2.6.2014 to 1.1.2019. During this period, several orders passed by Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao were against as well as in favour of the State of Andhra Pradesh.

So allegation made in the Memo about passing of orders by Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao only against the State of Telangana is not correct.

The Bench has no reason to have any hostility or to show favouritism to any individual or State, or any party, for that matter.

Being Judges of the Court this Bench has to, sometimes, adjudicate disputes to which the State or a State entity is a party. If on the facts and circumstances of a given case, a decision taken is against the State/other entity of the State, no intolerance can be drawn of any prejudice against it or its citizens. In any event, the aggrieved party has a right to appeal under the law against any adverse order.

Court’s Decision

The Bench declined to initiate any proceedings for contempt, close all issues arising out of the Memo, and excused from hearing the matter. It directed the Registry to place the file before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for passing appropriate orders in the main Writ Petition. And also on the Interim Applications filed therein by the petitioners.

Impact of the Judgement & Intervention sought

The Healthcare Reforms Doctors Association(HRDA) and Telangana Junior Doctors Association(TJDA) have sent letters to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, requesting intervention in the matter based on the merits and demerits of the case.

HRDA’s Letter Requesting Intervention

Serious allegations against a sitting High Court Judge, Bench refuses to proceed for Contempt of Court
The Healthcare Reforms Doctors Association (HRDA) have sent this letter to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India requesting intervention in the matter.

TJDA’s Letter Requesting Intervention 

Serious allegations against a sitting High Court Judge, Bench refuses to proceed for Contempt of Court
The Telangana Junior Doctors Association (TJDA) have sent this letter to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India requesting intervention in the matter.

[googlepdf url=”https://libertatem.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Sripathi-Panditharadhyula-Sudeep-Sharma-v.-State-of-Telangana_watermark.pdf” download=”Download Judgement PDF” width=”100%” height=”900″]


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Supreme Court : High Courts Have Sole Authority Under Article 226 To Decide Validity of Tax Provision, Even if Matter Is Sub-Judice Before Income...

A Full Bench of the Supreme Court held that the validity of a provision is a serious matter which could only be decided by...

Kerala High Court Rejects Writ Petition for Rejection of Loan Application

Case: Anvardeen. K v. Union of India. Coram: Justice P.V. Asha On 24th November 2020, The Kerala High Court involving a single bench judge of the...

Supreme Court: Maritime Board Must Not Wallow in Inaction and Be Arbitrary in Its Contractual Duties

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court held that a State instrumentality such as the Maritime Board is expected to act without any arbitrariness...

Supreme Court: Right to Property Is a Constitutional Right, the Essence of Rule of Law Protects It

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court has held that permitting the State to assert indefinite right upon one’s property, without any legal sanction...

Madras High Court Directs Tahsildar To Issue Origin Certificates To Two Sisters in Two Writ Petitions

Two Writ Petitions by two siblings was filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petitions owed to the fact that they were...

Delhi High Court Directs Centre and Delhi Govt To Consider a PIL Seeking Paid Menstrual Leave as Representation

The Delhi High Court had provided direction to consider a petition as representation. The Central and Delhi governments were directed to consider the same....

Madras High Court Reiterates That ‘Ignorance of Law’ Is Not an Excuse and Dismisses Petition by a Constable

A Constable committed bigamy and deserted his service for more than 21 days. After dismissal from his service, he moved to Tamil Nadu Administrative...

Transfer of Winding-up Proceedings Allowed Under S. 434, Restrictions Under 2016 Rules To Not Apply: Allahabad High Court

This appeal relates to the question of transfer of winding-up proceeding from the High Court (Company Court) to the NCLT.  Facts M/s. Girdhar Trading Company, 2nd...

Constitutional Court of South Africa Declares Provisions of Domestic Workers’ Injury Compensation Legislation To Be Unconstitutional

The Constitutional Court of South Africa in Sylvia Mahlangu v Minister of Labour , declared parts of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases...

Bail Granted Under Section 167(2) CrPC Can Be Cancelled Under Section 439(2) CrPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the right of default bail of the Accused can be cancelled under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Facts...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -