Andhra MP Krishnam Raju's Arrest :AP High Court Initiates Suo Moto Contempt Over Non-Compliance Of Orders On Medical Examination

In a dramatic development in the case relating to the arrest of YSRCP MP K Raghu Rama Krishnam Raju, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has initiated suo moto contempt proceedings against officials for not implementing the orders passed by it for the medical examination of the arrested legislator.

A division bench comprising Justices Lalitha Kannengati and C Praveen Kumar has initiated suo moto contempt proceedings against the Additional Director General of Police(CID), DGP Office, Guntur, Station House Officer, CID Police Station, Mangalgiri, Guntur District and Superintendent of Government Hospital, Guntur.

The copy of the order, which was passed on May 19, was uploaded today.

The contempt action is in relation to the non-compliance of the directions passed by the bench on May 16 to get the medical examination of Raju - who was arrested for alleged sedition and promotion of communal hatred over his speeches - done by Ramesh Hospital, Guntur, as was directed the Magistrate in an earlier order passed on May 15.

On May 15, the High Court had also passed an order for constitution of a medical board to examine Raju, while acting on a letter petition send by Senior Advocate B Adinarayana Rao alleging that the MP was being tortured in police custody. Later on the same day, the Magistrate had passed the order for medical examination of Raju at Ramesh Hospital, Guntur, while remanding him to police custody.

The next day, May 16, the High Court clarified that its order for constitution of medical board will not supersede the Magistrate's order, and that the Magistrate's order should be given effect to.

When the case was next taken on May 19, the Court was aghast to note that the State has not complied with its direction relating to medical examination of Raju at Ramesh Hospital, Guntur.

The State Government, represented by Additional Advocate General P Sudhakar Reddy, told the bench that Raju had approached the Supreme Court in the meanwhile, and that the top court, on May 17, had directed his medical examination at Army Hospital, Secunderabad.

In this connection, the High Court noted that the order passed it on May 16 was served on the state at 11 PM that day, and the Supreme Court's order was passed during the afternoon of May 17.

The High Court further observed that the Additional Advocate General "flared up in a high tone to the annoyance of the court and in an intimidating manner"  and argued that the order passed by it was a "nullity" and a "fraud" and was not liable to be followed.

The Additional Advocate General even asked if "he is supposed to open the prison doors at night and shift him(Raju) to hospital" as he had received the order only at 11 PM.

The High Court noted that the Additional Advocate General cited three reasons for not complying with the order :

(i) it is an "illegal", "fraud" order.

(ii)the jail doors cannot be opened at 11 PM.

(iii) accused had moved the Supreme Court.

The High Court said that none of these can be reasons to justify the non-compliance of its directions.

"None of these reasons prima facie convice this court for non-implementation of the order. Admittedly, the order of the Magistrate dated 15.05.2021 or the order of this court dated 16.05.2021 are not set aside or modified so far. The Respondents cannot sit in appeal on the orders passed by this court and decide it is an illegal order. When an order is passed by this court and as long as that order is not set aside, the respondents have no alternative but to implement the same", the HC said in its order.

"In the case on hand, where the accused complaints of ill treatment in police custody and when it is stated that he is not in a position to walk, the court directed the Respondents to "forthwith" implement the order of Magistrate. The Respondents should have understood the meaning of the word "forthwith". Even assuming for argument sake, the order was communicated at 11.00 P.M., and that they could not implement the same, they had time till the orders were passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the afternoon. Merely moving a bail petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be a ground for not implementing this Court's order. The orders of the high court are binding on the Respondents till the order is passed by Hon'ble Apex Court", the lead order passed by Justice Lalitha Kannengati stated.

The Additional Advocate General's argument was that the Magistrate's order for medical examination at a private hospital was in excess of the powers under Section 54 CrPC. He also submitted that an unbiased opinion was not possible from Ramesh Hospital as a case had been registered against the hospital owner.

Conduct of Additional Advocate General prima facie contemptuous

The High Court also went to the extent of observing that the conduct of the Additional Advocate General was prima facie contemptuous for the "brazenness and arrogance" shown by him while advancing arguments.

The Court said that it was a fit case for initiating contempt proceedings against him and for referring the matter to the Bar Council for disciplinary action. However, the bench said that it was showing "magnanimity" by not proposing to take such an action now.

"However, if this behaviour is repeated, this court will not hesitate to take the required action", the High Court warned the Additional Advocate General.

Justice C Praveen Kumar wrote a separate order to supplement the main order passed by Justice Lalitha Kannengati.

"I feel that learned Additional Advocate General Sri P. Sudhakar Reddy should have shown some restraint during the course of arguments. Restraint is the hallmark of a court room debate and choice of words should also be measured in a contested matter. The Additional Advocate General could have been sober and used better words during the court proceedings", Justice Praveen Kumar said in the order.

Incidentally, this action of the High Court in taking suo moto contempt was mentioned yesterday by the lawyers of Andhra Pradesh Government in the Supreme Court during the hearing of the bail plea of Krishna Raju.

Senior Advocates Dushyant Dave and V Giri, appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh, had requested a vacation bench comprising Justices Vineet Saran and BR Gavai to stay the contempt proceedings.

However, the order of the High Court was not uploaded by then. In such a circumstance, the Supreme Court bench said that it cannot pass any order, merely on the basis of an oral mentioning. 

Yesterday, the Supreme Court had granted bail to Krishnam Raju, who was arrested by the Guntur police from his Hyderabad residence on May 14. Raju's lawyer Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued in the Supreme Court that he was targeted for being an outspoken critic of his party leader and Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy.

Click here to read/download the order