Jagan gave benefits to judges who helped in his cases: RK


AP Chief Minister YS Jaganmohan Reddy’s YSRCP is on a single point programme to defame all those judges and courts which are passing orders against his Government’s unconstitutional decisions. It has reached a peak with the YSRCP MPs passing defamatory comments against the judges of Andhra Pradesh High Court directly in the Parliament. What more, the YSRCP MPs were commenting that the judges were acting in such a partisan manner because they were given house sites in Amaravati Capital City.

ABN Radha Krishna, in his latest Weekend Comment, made a specific reference to Vijayasai Reddy’s manipulative statement that the courts in AP did not give such orders against the then Governments’ decisions. RK reminds the YSRCP MP of how the courts at that time have issued many orders favouring CM Jaganmohan Reddy to bail him out of his illegal assets cases. RK recalled how Jaganmohan Reddy was surviving politically and was able to continue as Chief Minister just because of his manipulative tactics in the courts.

RK especially said that Jagan Reddy made retired judge Justice Raja Elango the Chairman of AP Real Estate Appellate Tribunal now. It was this same Justice Elango who issued stay orders on the confiscation of Bharati Cements properties by the Enforcement Directorate. The same justice also issued similar relief for Hetero Pharma company also at that time. Also, similarly personal exemption was given to Jaganmohan Reddy from appearing before the CBI courts amid reports of management by the YSRCP sympathisers.

RK commented that like never before, a kind of mob attack was launched by Jagan Reddy, his MPs and Ministers and MLAs on all systems and institutions. Even the judiciary is now thrown into a pitiable situation to defend itself to protect its own sanctity.

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. Post lu anni vadiki help chesinollaki తోడుదొంగలకే కదా. ,! ఇది పరమ సత్యం , చాల మందికి ఇదితెలుసు. కానీ ఏమి చెయ్యలేక ఊరుకున్నారు.

  2. Open letter to Chief Justice/APHC
    [APHC replaces CID by CBI relating postings against the judiciary]

    Hyderabad, 18th November 2020

    Respected Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court,

    Through this open letter, I would like to bring to your kind notice the following two important issues, namely:
    • Replacing CID with CBI by AP High Court;
    The AP High Court expressed displeasure over the CID investigation before handing over the task to CBI. On October 12 HC directed CBI to probe the case and submit a report to it. The CBI had mentioned in the FIR that CID has already registered 12 cases [based on the complaints of the HC Registrar General on the matter] and clubbed them in to a single-case.
    Here I would like to bring to your kind notice the fact that judge in undivided AP High Court ordered CBI to enquire on corruption charges against Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy with reference to a PIL by a politician. Again the same court ordered CBI to enquire on corruption charges against N. Chandrababu Naidu with reference to a PIL by a politician.
    CBI submitted Charge sheets one after the other in “Supersonic Speed” against Jagan Mohan Reddy under “quid pro co”, which is meaningless – why I said meaning less is the fact that previous government gave 2143 acres on 33-year lease and next government gave around 0.9% of 2143 acres of land on 33-year lease put CBI framed a charge sheet under quid pro co. More surprising is the charge sheets appeared in yellow media next morning issue [it gave an impression that both jointly prepared the charge sheets even before the court order].
    However, in the case of Chandrababu Naidu, the case was dumped in cup-board. Meanwhile Naidu got an opportunity to approach Supreme Court, wherein he used “not before me” clause to get choice bench who sent the case back to APHC. Here, the judge on the bench recused; then went to another bench but used again “not before me” clause and thus allotted to a third friendly bench who dismissed the case. But no action was taken on CBI for such a fraudulent act. That shows how CBI and judges work. Is it not so, Sir. With this Chandrababu Naidu became pious gentlemen and Jagan Mohan Reddy became a criminal hunting even to date under the Justice N. V. Ramana’s theory. Later Chandrababu Naidu banned entry of CBI in to AP.
    Here if CBI is correct then what is wrong with CID in the present case? Why transferred the case to CBI from CID?

  3. • Postings in social media platforms against judges and judiciary
    We must remember the fact that nobody made derogatory statements against the “judiciary” but it all relates to judges only. Judiciary is different from judges wherein the former is permanent body and the later are temporary persons.
    When a judge on the bench or single judge makes “loose-derogatory observations/statements on respondents-petitioners-Advocates”, naturally public make similar statements against the judges [if judges behave in a civilized manner in the courts while hearing the cases, then public also behaves in a civilized manner]. The judges must show legal decorum in the court.
    Sir, I doubt that constitution has provided a special provision/patent to judges to abuse the respondents-petitioners-Advocates in open courts. They should only follow the legal language and not street language otherwise they get repercussions from public.
    On the contrary, let me present another example: Environmental groups filed a PIL on Shamshabad Airport. The APHC bench gave judgment in favour of Government of N. Chandrababu Naidu as Chief Minister [same was the case with three other PILs also by the same judge bench] as against Supreme Court order – in all these cases profits involved were running in to hundreds-thousands of crores. I approached CBI on this but after hearing for around four hours, they expressed sorry we can’t help you. Then we filed another PIL in APHC, with the court’s order government issued a memo upholding GO111 & Supreme Court Order and agreed to bring out “Lake Protection Authority”. However, the government failed to implement them, it is another issue.
    Sir, in fact I dealt legal actions [thousands of cases] against polluting industries sitting at legal hearings as a member of APPCB Task force of undivided AP for nearly six years as a representative of environmental groups. I was associated with closing of industries as for Supreme Court order in 2001 in GO111 area under precautionary principle. I also filed few PILs relating to environmental issues on behalf of environmental groups. In one case even before going to the enquiry file to the bench, government withdrew land allocation.

    My submission: Sir, you may like to ask CBI, also to look in to on Conduct of the very same those Judges while hearing the cases.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here