Supreme Court takes up writ petition challenging appointment of sitting AP High Court judge Directs Attorney General to provide more information

On December 7, 2012 a Bench of Justices Aftab Alam and Ranjana Desai sought details with respect to the appointment of Justice NV Ramana to the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The petition, which alleged that certain vital factors were not considered in the appointment process, is perhaps the first of its kind to be heard by the Supreme Court. The Bench sought the assistance of the Attorney General in this matter and also directed the AG to submit details of the action taken by the Law Ministry with respect to the representations made by the Petitioner.

On December 7, 2012 a Bench of Justices Aftab Alam and Ranjana Desai sought details with respect to the appointment of Justice NV Ramana to the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The petition, which alleged that certain vital factors were not considered in the appointment process, is perhaps the first of its kind to be heard by the Supreme Court. The Bench sought the assistance of the Attorney General in this matter and also directed the AG to submit details of the action taken by the Law Ministry with respect to the representations made by the Petitioner.

As reported by Bar & Bench earlier, a petition filed by one M. Manohar Reddy and Senior Advocate MV Narasimha Reddy [M. Manohar Reddy & Anr v Union of India & Ors, WP(C) 174 of 2012] states that Justice Ramana was one of several students of the Nagarjuna University in Guntur who indulged in “large scale rioting” and damaged public property.  The incident took place on February 13, 1981. When Justice Ramana enrolled with the State Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh in February 1983, no mention of the FIR or of any pending criminal investigation was made and the enrollment was accepted. The petition states that on May 8, 2000, the trial court proclaimed Justice Ramana and his co-accused as “absconders”. However this fact was neither disclosed by Justice Ramana during his enrolment process nor was it considered by the collegium. Furthermore, the Petitioner had also approached the Law Ministry with these facts but thus far no action had been taken by the Ministry.

The Petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Ram Jethmalani. However before Jethmalani could begin his arguments, Justice Alam mentioned that it was the then Law Minister that had vigorously pushed for Justice Ramana’s appointment despite the fact that the collegiums was not in favour of the same. The Bench was making a subtle reference to the fact that it was Jethmalani who had been Law Minster at the time.

Accepting this, Jethmalani informed the Bench that had he known that Justice Ramana was a proclaimed absconder, there would never have been any question of Justice Ramana being recommended. Jethmalani also enquired as to whether this mistake could be undone in any way. Without hearing any more oral arguments, the Bench asked the Attorney General to provide details on the actions taken by the Law Ministry with respect to the representation and posted the matter for further hearing on January 21, 2013.