AP High Court stay on ACB case against Ex Advocate General


The Andhra Pradesh High Court has issued yet another stay order on the latest case filed by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) against former Advocate General Dammalapati Srinivas. The stay was issued after the court heard the arguments of lawyers of both sides. The lawyers of Srinivas moved a house motion and argued that the FIR was filed against their client with a motive to harass him.

The AP ACB has made allegations that Dammalapati Srinivas misused his office of high position during the previous Government and indulged in real estate dealings in Amaravati lands. The ACB said that Srinivas has bought lands initially through benamis and then those lands were transferred to his name. However, such allegations have been levelled against the Telugu Desam Party leaders from before the 2019 elections. But, the Jagan Reddy regime was not able to prove with evidence any of these charges in the past 16 months.

The latest case against Dammalapati Srinivas came amidst fresh crack down by the Jagan regime to corner rival leaders who were agitating against his 3 Capitals idea relentlessly.

The stay in the former AG’s case came as a boost for the Amaravati farmers who have been holding protests in their villages for over 272 days. Countless cases are being filed in the courts on the issue of Amaravati Capital with orders coming against the Government consistently. Yet, the YSRCP took it as a prestigious matter to shift the Capital to Visakhapatnam. Sadly, the Capital issue has become a cat and mouse game with the courts and the Central Government being in the crossfire.

Telugu360 is always open for the best and bright journalists. If you are interested in full-time or freelance, email us at Krishna@telugu360.com.


  1. Why such order was issued? When CBI issued charge sheets, the next day the same appreared in Yellow media. Then why the discrimination. see Part I of my mail to Hon’ble Chief Justice of India,


    This is with reference to Justice Ramana bench of Supreme Court of India asking the Centre to clarify its stand on life time ban on contesting elections by MLs, MPs, etc. “It is flawed reference”. Each case must be decided based on its own merits. Each judge interprets/acts in his own way & each member of an investigating agency interprets/acts in his own way as there are no hard and fast rules or fixed rules – in this process many real culprits escaping clutches of the Law. It is a political game of that time. Unfortunately Indian justice is costly in which money & power play vital role. Let me present few issues for consideration:
    Collegium System: It plays a cruel Joke on the lives of people. This system with its closeness with political power and industrial power make good as bad and bad as good.
    Not Before me: Play the crucial role in escaping criminals from the clutches of the law; and implicating innocent people as corrupt.
    Stop Order: This facilitate a criminal escape the clutches of the law or hinder the progress of the activity that affect the people and the exchequer [cost escalation].
    Quid Pro Co: It is technically flawed process. A government allots 2143 acres of land to an industry on 33-year lease, CBI does not consider it come under quid pro co; but on the contrarily, later another government allots around 20 acres to industries on 33-year lease, CBI consider it come under quid pro co.
    Association with political power: In the present case, the advocate belongs to BJP, ruling party at the Centre.
    The issue: It relates to MLAs & MPs disqualification to contest elections lifelong. Then, what about judges, advocates, investing agencies, bureaucrats, common man, etc.?
    Action from SC: In such circumstances, the Supreme Court must first address these issues before punishing innocent people and corrupt escaping the clutches of the law – many a times in courts it is argued that innocent should not be punished. Has any court punished the rulers who announce financial support to the state that is going for election?

    This shows the yesterday stop order follow this only.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

  2. Part-II:

    The Supreme Court on September 10th, 2020 issued a notice to the Union of India six weeks’ time to respond on the application (amended) filed by the petitioner-cum-lawyer and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, regarding debarring convicted MLAs and MPs from contesting elections for life.
    Justice N. V. Ramana was heading the three member bench. The basic problem in such issues is that “in majority of the cases, the entire systems are biased in India”. The systems I mean are judiciary and investigating agencies.
    I sent an open letter to CJI of SC dated 2nd February 2013 with a copy to Prime Minister of India. These are basically related to the integrity of judiciary, investigating agencies, etc. After my letter I noticed a swift action by the Central Government and Supreme Court.
    The Central government organized a meeting with Chief Ministers of States & UTs and judges [this might have been based on my mail or a sheer coincidence]. They discussed issues like replacing collegium system with UPSC [which I proposed in my above referred letter] as an alternate, etc. Judges favored collegium system and Chief Ministers favored UPSC. However, as a via-media government brought out National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014. The parliament had passed unanimously the NJAC Act, 2014 and the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act. Both these acts were meant to replace the two-decade-old collegium system of judges appointing judges in the higher judiciary. These Acts were passed in order to bring transparency in the appointment of Judges and give elected public representatives a role in the entire appointment process. The Constitutional Amendment Act was later ratified by 20 State Assemblies and had received the Presidential assent on 31 December 2014 and came effective from April 2015. However, Supreme Court strikes down NJAC, revives collegium system [October, 17, 2015] – that is four judges over ruled the people of India.
    The Bench, led by Justice J S Khehar, held as “ultra vires” the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act and the NJAC Act, which had proposed that appointments be done by a six-member body, headed by the Chief Justice of India, and including two senior most SC judges, the Union Law Minister and two “eminent” persons. These two would be selected by a panel including the Prime Minister, the CJI and the leader of the largest Opposition party in the Lok Sabha. A five-judge Constitution Bench ruled with a 4:1 majority that judges’ appointments shall continue to be made by the Collegium system in which the Chief Justice of India will have “the last word”.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

  3. Part — II: cont — Where from “ultra vires” coming when collegium system is 20-year-old that clearly tells us that prior to collegium system, a different system existed; and yet the majority judges of the bench showed they are supreme in selecting judges unlike in UPSC system. Here automatically corruption enter the judicial appointments. However, Justice J Chelemaswar writing a dissenting verdict upheld the validity of the constitutional amendment. His views on the collegium received partial support from the other judges, who noted that collegium system may need certain improvements. Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, who led the case on behalf of the Centre, called it a “flawed” verdict and said the Bench overruled the “will of the people” as represented by the parliament.
    Reservation system: Dr. B. R. Ambedkar included 10 years reservations for SCs in the Indian Constitution. However, even after 70 years it is still continuing. In addition, reservations were extended to several other groups based on caste, religion, etc. instead of using economic criteria if necessary. Here no discrimination between rich and poor. Is it not against the constitution? Why this was not rejected by the SC? Is it not a political agenda?
    Corrupt practices: In my letter to CJI of SC with a copy to PM dated 11th February 2013 wherein I raised three issues namely “not before me”, “quid-pro-co” and “Collegium System”. Former two are illogical and are used to manipulate justice. The misuse of these two clauses is more hazardous than corruption. Justice is rarely achieved with such a system. Unfortunately in the recruitment of judges there is no independent body like UPSC and thus lacking integrity. All these three help in subverting the justice.
    Black money role: Everybody knows the fact that black money plays the major role in several areas, more particularly in real estate in urban areas. To facilitate this activity, both centre and states have been indiscriminately raising the salaries [even after 14th Finance Commission put some restrictions/suggestions – I contributed through my letter] and perks that help to convert illegally earned money in to white in real estate. In 2003, I gave a written proposal to AP government at a budget discussion session “bring down the registration fee and raise the registration value to market value (at that time they were around 20% (white):80% (black)]. In 2005 it was implemented. The registration fee was brought down from 13.5% to 9.5% and in Jubilee Hills in Hyderabad the land value was raised from around Rs. 5000-6000 to Rs. 38,000 per square yard. So all over India black money has been easily converted in to white – escapes from corruption charges. Now through FDI same is happening. What about this???
    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here