Live
- SIT focuses on irregularities in quality ghee supply to TTD
- Take Maha win as inspiration, forget bypoll defeat: BJP chief
- Former Makthal MLA Chittem Rammohan Reddy Taken into Custody Amid Protests Concerns
- Man stabs lover in apartment, spends day with the corpse
- Pawan appeals for road-over-bridge at Pithapuram
- Pawan presents wishlist to Union ministers
- CM Naidu proposes iconic Deep tech building in Amaravati
- SFI activists protest over Sambhal killings
- Gurukul school observes Constitution Day
- Constitution belongs to every Indian: Haryana Guv Dattatraya
Supreme Court relief to ex-judge Eswaraiah
Supreme Court relief to ex-judge Eswaraiah
The Supreme Court on Monday granted relief to former justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court V Eswaraiah, in connection with an enquiry ordered by Andhra Pradesh High Court into the telephonic conversation between the former judge and a suspended district munsif magistrate
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday granted relief to former justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court V Eswaraiah, in connection with an enquiry ordered by Andhra Pradesh High Court into the telephonic conversation between the former judge and a suspended district munsif magistrate.
A bench consisting of Justices Ashok Bhushan and R Subhash Reddy said on Monday, on a plea by Justice Eswaraiah challenging the AP High Court order calling for a probe by retired Supreme Court judge Justice R V Raveendran into the telephonic conversation, "authenticity and genuineness of the transcript having been admitted to the extent as contained in Annexure P-16, we are of the view that the direction by the High Court...need not be allowed to continue".
The top court ruled that there was no occasion for the High Court to order an enquiry into the conversation involving the former judge considering the fact that the judge had already admitted to the conversation and also filed a corrected English transcript of the conversation.
The order by the High Court was passed in an intervention application filed by a suspended district munsif magistrate in an unrelated public interest litigation petition seeking implementation of Covid-19 guidelines in the High Court.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have embarked on any other role other than the deciding on the maintainability aspect of the petition before it.
"We are of the view that the High Court ought not to have embarked on any other enquiry in the matter except to the maintainability of the PIL at the instance of the writ petitioner...as the enquiry report sought was only with the above purpose," said the Supreme Court.
The top court, therefore, ruled that it is for the High Court to proceed with the writ petition and decide the same, including the maintainability of the PIL, after hearing arguments on which point the orders were reserved.
