The developments in this matter came to light in June 2019 when the Reddy government issued a notification setting up a cabinet sub-committee to review major policies, projects, programmes, institutions and major administrative actions taken by the post-bifurcation TDP government. . file | Photo Credit: Sushil Kumar Verma
In a legal victory for the Jagan Mohan Reddy government, the Supreme Court on May 3 set aside an Andhra Pradesh High Court order that issued a “complete stay” on the investigation into the Amaravati land scam and the alleged role of the previous Telugu Desam Party regime was done. ,
The developments in this case came to light in June 2019 when the Reddy government notified setting up of a cabinet sub-committee to review major policies, projects, programmes, institutions and major administrative actions taken by the TDP government after the bifurcation of the erstwhile state. was issued. of Andhra Pradesh.
The first report of the sub-committee dated December 27, 2019 had highlighted “numerous procedural, legal and financial irregularities and fraudulent transactions relating to various projects including the Capital Region Development Authority sector”.
On February 21, 2020, the state government issued another notification setting up a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to “enquire, register, investigate and conclude the investigation” into the findings of the report.
Both the notifications were stayed sine die by the High Court, prompting the state to approach the apex court for relief.
On Wednesday, a Supreme Court bench headed by Justice MR Shah agreed with the state’s contention that the high court had “misconstrued and misinterpreted” the two notifications issued by the government.
“If the two government notifications are considered, it cannot be seen as obstructing the decisions of the previous government and reviewing the decisions of the previous government. The cabinet sub-committee was constituted and the Special Investigation Team constituted to probe the allegations of corruption and malfeasance of the previous government,” Justice Shah, who authored the judgement, read the operative passages of the judgement.
The Bench observed that the High Court, while granting the interim stay, had not considered the fact that the State Government had already made a representation to the Center for referring the probe to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
Justice Shah concluded that the High Court should not have stayed the entire investigation at such an early stage.
Setting aside the stay order of the High Court, the bench said it was not commenting on the merits of the case. It asked the High Court to examine the matter on merits without being influenced by any observation in the apex court’s judgment.
The respondent before the apex court, TDP leader Varla Ramaiah, had accused the Reddy government of indulging in political vendetta. Mr Ramaiah said the probe was motivated by political rivalry.
A division bench headed by Justice MR Shah, while reserving the matter for adjudication, had observed, “Political rivalry alone cannot be a ground to quash an inquiry into allegations of corruption and misuse of public office…Perhaps many Sometimes only political rivalry can bring out the truth.” ,
Mr. Ramaiah had accused Chief Minister Reddy of conducting an ongoing investigation of the TDP regime “to take revenge against those whom he holds responsible for the cases registered against him”.
The state had strongly stated in the Supreme Court that the Amaravati land case was not a product of “regime vendetta”.
“The entire process was extremely fair. The state was proceeding in a cautious manner. The committee report suggested massive manipulation and systemic involvement of TDP leaders in land. The SIT was constituted to probe financial irregularities… It was impossible for the High Court to interfere at the investigation stage,” the state government had argued.