The Andhra Pradesh High Court’s comments by Justice Chandru, a retired Madras High Court judge and sensational film “Jai Bheem” fame, sparked controversy.
He said that like other areas, courts also have certain limitations. His derogatory remarks invited sharp anger from the AP High Court as Justice Battu Devanand expressed severe displeasure at Justice Chandru.
Justice Chandru saw some of the observations as contravention of the courts as he said that courts can impose fines on governments for failing to file counter-affidavits on habeas corpus cases and cannot go ahead with issuing orders. Stating that the ultimate aim of the courts should be to protect human rights and serve the people, Justice Chandru felt that the courts were not moving in the right direction. There are few incidents, which can be repeated, that some judges have openly agreed in public forums that some of their decisions were wrong.
Justice Chandru also found fault that on the basis of social media comments, the courts sought a CBI probe and sent the search team abroad. Since the Constitution is a weapon, he said advocates can be happy by serving the victims and the people and cannot earn money.
He courted controversy by saying that the government elected by the people has to fight the court rather than the opposition parties. He made some serious remarks while attending an event organized by APCLC and Kul Vivaksha Vyatireka Porata Samiti in Vijayawada on Monday.
The AP government is going in a different way as it withdraws the laws passed in the Legislative Assembly without the knowledge of the judiciary and judiciary system in Andhra Pradesh and is going in the other direction. He also observed that justice could not be done in the case of the three capital cities as the government sought transfer of the case to other judges from the judges who have land in Amaravati in the state.
This comment of Justice Chandru is going viral on social media and there is a debate.
Taking a serious note of this, Justice Battu Devanand of Andhra Pradesh High Court has expressed serious displeasure.
He said that the purpose of such comments is to malign the image of the entire judiciary and the courts. Justice Devanand said some people may indulge in such remarks to stay in the limelight and blame the entire judiciary should be avoided. Justice Chandru’s remarks may be for the protection of human rights and people and should not be aimed at maligning the image of the court.
Justice Battu Devanand found that he had respect for Justice Chandru for his pivotal role in the film Jai Bheem and now withdrew it after his comments in Vijayawada. He opposed Justice Chandru’s comments for defaming the entire court and judiciary system by not understanding the current situation in the state. He asked whether it was wrong to order a CBI inquiry into derogatory posts against judges on social media.
Justice Chandru may produce a film on human rights violations in respect of Narsipatnam’s Dr Sudhakar, who was beaten up by police in Visakhapatnam. The courts will try to protect the people as the government suo motu in the contempt of court case to stop the meetings of the Secretariat and Rythu Bharosa Centers on the premises of the schools. “The judiciary is for the people and it is our duty to protect their interests. We asked the government to stop the suicides by workers of employment guarantee scheme for non-payment of bills,” he said.
We are trying to protect the rights of the people and for the people and it is not right to blame the courts, instead someone else can go for appeal. Human rights violations and atrocities are not limited to police stations they are happening elsewhere and we are obliged to protect people. I withdraw from writing a letter to the Chief Justice of the High Court to take up the criminal case suo motu on the basis of social status, service to society and age of Justice Chandru.
There may be some loopholes in the system as judges, lawyers are working amidst inadequacies which even human beings may unknowingly commit some mistakes. There is no room for such malicious remarks and the entire judiciary has no place for lapse, he said, adding that being helpless they are refraining from giving proper reply to such comments in front of the media.
In one case, he expressed dissatisfaction over non-payment of furniture bills in village secretariats. The court adjourned the matter and sought an affidavit as principal secretary SS Rawat agreed to delay in payment of bills and release of funds to some extent.
A division bench headed by AP High Court Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra also expressed serious dismay over Justice Chandru’s observations on the court and the judiciary. “I saw his comments in a newspaper, who came from another state, made derogatory remarks only to keep headlines against the court, instead of limiting the topic of human rights violations,” he said.
Stating that such lights would be switched off, he said that judges and advocates as human beings can commit some mistakes and this can be challenged at a higher level. Advocate Ashwinikumar, representing the court, said Justice Chandru’s remarks are meant to encourage OTT films to run from one month’s shows to 100 days.
The court then sought an affidavit for a logical end on the progress of the case for the malicious social media comments. The court asked the CBI officials to nab the people who fled the country, including Panch Prabhakar and others, and file an affidavit with details. Advocate General SV Raju, appearing for CBI, said that social media is not giving details of people who posted such comments. He appealed to the court to ban such derogatory posts on social media and certain interviews against the legal system.
Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Sajan Puwaiya, appearing for Facebook and Google, said that they have no objection in giving details of the case to the CBI. On an appeal, the court closed the contempt case related to Kathi Mahesh, who died recently. The court adjourned the hearing of the case till January 25.
read all breaking news, today’s fresh news And coronavirus news Here.