Attorney General for India KK Venugopal has declined to give his consent for initiation of contempt proceedings against Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister YS Jaganmohan Reddy and his principal advisor Ajeya Kallam..While doing so, the AG has stated that their conduct of leveling allegations against the Supreme Court's Justice NV Ramana was "contumacious.".Last week, Supreme Court lawyer and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesperson Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay had written a letter to AG Venugopal seeking his consent to initiate contempt proceedings against CM Reddy and Kallam..Attorney General KK Venugopal's consent sought to initiate contempt against Andhra CM YS Jaganmohan Reddy.Upadhyay had stated that the letter sent by CM Reddy to Chief Justice of India SA Bobde making allegations against Justice Ramana and other judges scandalized the authority of both the Supreme Court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court..In his reply to this letter, AG Venugopal has admitted that "objectionable statements" were indeed made in the letter addressed by Reddy and that the "Chief Justice is well aware of the nature of allegations in the letter.".The AG further states that the "timing of the letter" and its publication was itself "suspect", as it was done soon after a Supreme Court Bench headed by Justice Ramana called for the expeditious disposal of cases against legislators. .4,442 pending cases against MPs, MLAs across India; 2,556 cases against sitting legislators - Amicus Curiae informs Supreme Court."As you have yourself pointed out that there are 31 criminal cases pending against him as on October," the AG says in his response to Upadhyay's letter..While noting that "prima facie, the conduct of the said persons in contumacious", the AG declined consent to initiate contempt proceedings, stating that CJI Bobde is already seized of the matter..Upadhyay's letter states that the Andhra CM is himself an accused in at least 31 cases concerning the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act pending before the Special Court situated under the jurisdiction of Telangana."He has been granted bail and continues to discharge his duties as a public servant while these trials are on," Upadhyay stated..Referring to his plea seeking to establish special courts to try cases against MPs and MLAs, Upadhyay's letter states that the Supreme Court was informed by the State of Telangana in October that day-to-day trial of cases against legislators would commence Thus, Reddy is "directly affected" by this as he is also a MLA who face cases..He further stated,"...if this kind precedent were allowed, political leaders would start making reckless allegations against judges who do not decide cases in their favour and this trend would soon spell the death knell of an independent judiciary.".Citing the letter sent by Reddy to CJI Bobde wherein detailed allegations have been levelled against Justice NV Ramana, Upadhyay describes the same as "scurrilous" and an attempt to interfere with the course of his plea seeking expeditious trial against legislators. The letter states,"The audacious assault by the Chief Minister and Kellam on the judiciary of the country is without precedent. The timing of the letter, the contents of the same, the rush to spill it to the public while the matter was pending with the Chief Justice and the separate Statement read out by Shri Kellam make it manifestly clear that this was done to interfere with the course of justice and lower the authority of the court.".Urging that a contempt case be filed against Kellam, the letter states that the principal advisor "is a senior IAS officer and ought to know better about the consequences of releasing such material to the press"."He also purported that the contents of the Statement he read out (not the letter) reflect the views of the State of Andhra Pradesh," says Upadhyay..For these reasons, among others, Upadhyay sought consent from AG Venugopal under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Rule 3 of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975.