AP CM is not initiating the bifurcation process, TRS MP B Vinod Kumar alleges
The court is functioning with only 23 judges instead of 49 judges
Hidden agenda behind the HC division delay
here seemed to be a hidden agenda in delaying the division of the High Court, he said. One of the reasons for delay was the AP Chief Minister’s fear about losing the cases against Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy, the Leader of Opposition in AP. “Perhaps Naidu wanted to wield his control uninterrupted in this regard,” he averred.
Vinod Kumar has explained the math of High Court judges to show why AP CM is favouring the continuance of the status quo. Presently, the High Court is functioning only with 23 judges while it should have a minimum 49 judges.
Among the 23, only four judges belong to Telangana. Among this four, one judge has retired recently and one more is going to be retired by the end of this month. This means there will be only two judges from Telangana region in the High Court.
According to Vinod, 17 openings are coming up in the High Court. Out these, 6 posts shall be filled from judiciary and remaining 11 should be filled by members of Bar Council.
Vinod Kumar argued had the High Court been divided by now, all 11 judge appointees would have belonged to Telangana and AP CM doesn’t want this to happen as he has an eye on Jagan Mohan Reddy’s cases. “This factor actually making Chandrababu to resist any attempt of division of the High Court,” said Vinod Kumar.
Suspension of opposition MLA in AP assembly is disturbing: SC
NeW DELHI: Expressing shock on the way in which YSR Congress MLA R K Roja was suspended from Andhra Pradesh assembly for a year without granting her opportunity to defend herself, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said it was a “very disturbing” trend which showed “something is wrong in the country”.
A bench of V Gopala Gowda and Arun Mishra also did not mince words in criticising the Andhra Pradesh High Court for not entertaining Roja’s plea against her suspension which she alleged was illegal and unconstitutional as MLA could be suspended for only a session and not for a year.
The registry of the HC had termed her petition as “not maintainable” and the court refused to give her an urgent hearing on her plea to stay the suspension and to participate in the ongoing Budget session, compelling her to move the apex court.
“Adverse order was passed against the MLA but copy of the order was not supplied to her. What is going on in this country as rule of law is being defeated. Can a people’s representative be treated like this. That is worrying us and we are a little disturbed. Something going wrong in this country,” the bench said.
The state government counsel tried to justify the action of her suspension but the bench refused to hear his plea saying that he would have to answers a lot of inconvenient questions if it decided to hear the case on merit. “We hope you will give proper advice to your client on the issue,” the bench said.
The bench directed that her plea be heard by the HC first and ordered that her petition be placed by Chief Justice of HC on Wednesday morning. It bench ordered that her plea must be heard on Wednesday itself and directed SC registry to inform the HC through email. It said that order passed by HC registry not to entertain her plea was “uncalled for”.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for Roja, told the bench that the MLA had been asking the speaker to provide her suspension order and also CD of the assembly proceedings to challenger her suspension but her plea was turned down. She contended that suspension of an MLA could not exceed beyond current session.