Can Writ Under Article 32 Be Issued Against A Private Individual? Supreme Court To Examine

The Division bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and K.V. Vishwanathan posed this question while hearing a writ petition against Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy for accusing Justice N.V. Ramana, who was next in line to be the Chief Justice of India at the time, of impropriety.

To elaborate, On October 11, Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy, the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, wrote a complaint to the Chief Justice of India, S A Bobde, alleging that some High Court judges are attempting to protect the interests of the major opposition party, Telugu Desom Party, in politically sensitive matters.

A striking feature of the complaint—details of which were revealed to the media in a presser by Ajaya Kellam, the CM's advisor, on Saturday evening—was that it had accused senior Supreme Court judge Justice N V Ramana, who is next in line to be the Chief Justice of India, of influencing the administration of justice in the High Court.

Charges of, among other things, attempting to "destabilise and topple the democratically elected Government of the State of Andhra Pradesh" was levelled against Justice Ramana, who went on to become the 48th Chief Justice of India.

Later, an in-house probe by the Supreme Court gave clean chit to Justice Ramana, discarding the allegations made by the Andhra CM.

The present petition filed on behalf of Sunil Kumar Singh, a practicing lawyer, through Advocate on Record Mukti Singh, placed their reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in E.M. Sankaran Namboodiripad v. T. Narayanan Nambiar., 1970 AIR 2015. In Nambiar's case, the chief minister of Kerala, E M S Namboodiripad, made some statements in a press conference that judges are “guided and dominated by class hatred, class interests and class prejudices.” This resulted in one of the notable judgments by the Supreme Court, holding E M S guilty of contempt.

Singh argued that the contents of the letter and its release to the media "caused injury to the public". "What is at stake is the confidence, which, the court in a democratic society must inspire among the public. This practice should not be allowed," Singh asserted.

Further, it was averred that freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution is subject to reasonable restrictions in relation to contempt of courts and defamation. “In the society of today, where the discussion in the media and on social media can go wild within days or within hours, it can affect the image of judiciary and hence the confidence of the general public in the judiciary,” the plea read.