Saturday, December 5, 2020

SC advocate writes to AGI to reconsider his decision on consenting to contempt case against Jagan, Kallam

New Delhi: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyaya, a Supreme Court advocate and BJP leader, has written his second letter to Attorney General od India (AGI) K.K. Venugopal on Thursday requesting him to reconsider his decision to not give his consent to proceed against Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy and his principal advisor Ajeya Kallam on initiating criminal contempt charges. The litigant has cited some new grounds on which the AGI could reconsider his decision. The following is the letter:


Hon’ble Sh. K.K.Venugopal,

Attorney General for India,

Subject: Request for Reconsideration: Request for Consent to initiate Criminal Contempt against Sh. Jagan Mohan Reddy and Sh. Ajeya Kallam

REF: My request dated 25.10.2020 and your Reply dated 02.11.2020


At the outset, I express my gratitude for the prompt response that you have accorded to my above request. I know your time is precious and I am grateful that you have accommodated my plea.

Your letter makes it clear that you find the conduct of both these persons prima facie contumacious. However, my request has been declined on the ground that the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India is seized of the matter. I am afraid that this latter aspect may require reconsideration for the following reasons:The letter of Sh. Reddy to the Chief Justice was dated 6.10.2020 but sent to the CJI on 08.10.2020. This was a private missive with scurrilous contents. At this stage, it was left to the CJI alone to determine whether it constituted contempt. But, once Sh. Kallam on Sh. Reddy’s behalf called a press conference, read out a separate statement and released the letter to the media and public on 10.10.2020, it ceased to be a private matter, and there was also an additional actor and an additional statement made. Now, the public have been given the impression that Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are involved in influencing cases, and this you have opined is contumacious, albeit prima facie. These subsequent facts are not a part of the complaint pending with the Chief Justice.

You may also note that the Chief Justice is seized of a complaint BY Sh. Jagan Mohan Reddy against the judiciary, NOT a complaint of contempt AGAINST him and his Advisor. It is unclear how the fact that Sh. Reddy’s complaint pending with the Chief Justice can preclude my right to initiate criminal contempt against him and Sh. Kallam. Even if such were the case, consent could be granted by you, and my petition would be tagged for hearing.

I wish to draw your attention to the Restatement on Contempt of Court (2011) published by the Supreme Court of India which has been co-authored by you, in which, in the context of Section 15, it has been stated that “Giving or refusing consent is a statutory function” [p.99]. As it is a statutory function, I would humbly submit that the import of Section 15 is only to have the judgment of the highest Law Officer precede a motion being made by any person to initiate criminal contempt proceedings through application of mind to the content of the alleged contempt. Once a conclusion is drawn that the contempt is prima facie made out, it would be necessary for the consent to follow. For example, it would not be appropriate for me to be told to make my motion to the Advocate General of Andhra Pradesh just as it would not be relevant that the Chief Justice is a recipient on the administrative side of a private communication.

Sir, I humbly request you to peruse these points (particularly the fact that the question of contempt is not pending anywhere else) and kindly reconsider the granting of consent to my request. This is an issue of great importance at a time when our judiciary continues to be besieged by attacks, and a strong stand needs to be taken by those of us who are a part of the institution.

Your sincerely,
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay

K. Ramachandra Murthy
K. Ramachandra Murthy
Founder & Editor


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

AG refuses consent once again to proceed against Jagan, Kallam

I watched the press conference, nothing extra was saidNobody has a right to insist on initiating contempt proceedingsIt is between the court and the...

Declining consent to prosecute Jagan for Contempt of Court

Attorney General pushes case to court of CJI The response of the Attorney General of India Mr K. K. Venugopal to the petition of...

AGI Venugopal refuses permission to proceed against AP CM on contempt

AGI calls CM’s letter ‘contumacious.’He refers to Justice Ramana directing pending criminal cases to be disposed New Delhi: Attorney General of India K.K. Venugopal has ...

Stay Connected

- Advertisement -

Latest Articles

Top TRS leaders failed in the mission

Hyderabad : There have been reverses suffered by top leaders of the ruling TRS in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) elections held on December...

GHMC Results: Many lessons for all the parties in the fray

Hyderabad: The ruling TRS received a drubbing it was fearing. Chief Minister K. Chandrasekhar Rao (KCR) should thank his stars for advancing the polls...

It will be TS tomorrow: Lakshman

Hyderabad: “Yesterday it was Dubbaka, today it is Hyderabad and tomorrow it will be Telangana State,” said a happy Lakshman, president of national OBC...

2 lakh tonnes coal per day from this month

1.85 tonnes to be transported per dayC & MD Sridhar’s instructions to GMs of all areas Md. Muneer Special Correspondent, Prime Post Mancherial : Since the demand...

GHMC Results: TRS or BJP, Who Won?

Seats and vote share increased for BJP TRS happy with numbers Only Revanth Reddy saved cong even in single digit Hyderabad: GHMC results are still slowly coming...