CAUSE TITLE:
The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr Versus Varla Ramaiah etc.
DATE OF ORDER:
03-05-2023
JUDGE(S):
M.R.Shah, M. M. Sundresh
PARTIES:
Petitioner:The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr
Respondent: Varla Ramaiah etc.
Subject
In a petition filed by the Andhra Pradesh government, the Supreme Court overturned an order by the Andhra Pradesh High Court that had stopped the investigation into the Amaravathi Land Scam.
Facts
A High Court ruling issued in September 2020 staying government orders authorizing the formation of a Special Investigating Team (SIT) to look into claims of a land scam in Amaravati during the previous administration under the Telugu Desam Party was challenged by the government of Andhra Pradesh. The judgment would not be rendered until November 2022.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner
- The petitioner's senior attorney, Abhishek Singhvi, had earlier contested the impugned stay order. "The order is quite early. You are telling me to stop asking questions. How is this possible to say so broadly? Singhvi enquired.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent
- Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, the respondent's attorney, passionately disagreed with Singhvi's arguments. According to Dave, "Normally and ordinarily, a change in the regime should not result in a situation where there is widespread prosecution of individuals for political reasons. Criminal prosecution was also started based on the conclusions of the fact-finding group, which was only composed of members of the ruling regime and had unusually broad limits of scope. The structure of this body is a blatant example of bias. What if this happened in every state where a new government is to be installed? This is merely a witch hunt.
Analysis of court
- The Bench agreed in its ruling with the Senior Counsel representing the State who claimed that the High Court had misconstrued the two official instructions.
- When the two aforementioned GOs are taken into account, it becomes clear that the same cannot be stated to be reversing the prior decisions made by the previous administration. To investigate the claims of corruption and mismanagement by the previous administration, the SIT's Subcommittee was established.
- The Supreme Court's top court also pointed out that the High Court had disregarded several arguments based on those precedents.
- "There might be some additional factors that the High Court needs to take into account in the current Writ petition, specifically because of the committee's reference. Based on the decisions made by this Court regarding legal issues, the High Court has also not taken into account certain arguments made before us. It was not taken into account because the original petitioner had asked the Central government to refer the case to the CBI.
- The current administration, led by Y.S.R. Jagan Mohan Reddy, has accused TDP chief N. Chandrababu Naidu and his allies of amassing enormous money through illicit means under the guise of creating Amaravati, the projected capital of the state. A cabinet subcommittee was established under Reddy's leadership as a result of a government directive to examine different policy decisions and programs made under the previous administration, particularly about projects like the Capital Region, Polavaram. A second government order was issued, and an SIT was established to look into the claims in light of the subcommittee's report, which contained preliminary findings of corruption and fraudulent land deals at Amravati. The High Court scrutinized these two government directives and put them on hold after concluding that they were politically motivated based on a prima facie case. The High Court had also ruled that the current administration did not have the authority to consider every proposal for policy made by their predecessors.
- The High Court should not have given an interim stay when it was not necessary because the situation was still in its infancy, according to the bench. While making it apparent that we have not made any judgments regarding the case's merits, we are inclined to set aside the orders dated for the reasons mentioned above. The High Court is anticipated to rule on the merits of the writ petition by the law, ignoring any of the points expressed in our order. Accordingly, petitions are granted.
