ELECTION 99
US EDITION
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES

Search Rediff

AP high court rejects plea for Naidu's prosecution

A division bench of the Andhra Pradesh high court today dismissed two writ petitions in limini filed by state Congress chief Y S Rajasekhar Reddy and others seeking a direction to the governor to give them permission to prosecute Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu for alleged acts of corruption and nepotism.

The bench, comprising Chief Justice M S Liberhan and Justice V V S Rao, held that no writ petition was maintainable against the governor in view of the immunity conferred on the office under Article 361 of the Constitution.

Similarly, the bench rejected the petitioners' contention that not holding elections to the nine municipalities located in the periphery of the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad even after expiry of their tenure constituted a wilful breach of the Constitution and was enough ground to disqualify the chief minister.

The high court registry had objected to making the governor a party to the writ petition.

But the petitioners, making charges of corruption, nepotism and amassment of wealth against the chief minister, had submitted that the governor had not responded to their request for permission to prosecute him, nor had he assigned any reason for this delay.

Under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the chief minister of a state can be prosecuted only with the permission of the governor.

Dr Rajasekhar Reddy, contending that Chandrababu Naidu had made contradictory statements about his financial status, gave the instance of Heritage Foods India Limited owned by the chief minister's wife Bhuvaneshwari in support of his allegations.

Speaking for the bench, Chief Justice Liberhan said the high court registry was right in objecting to the governor being made a respondent in the writ petition.

In the present case, the governor had neither taken a decision on the issue nor expressed his inability to accord permission to the petitioners. The petitioners wanted the court to believe that the governor was not inclined to take a decision on their request for extraneous considerations. But it was not possible to reach that conclusion in the absence of any decision by the governor, he said.

The chief justice said the writ petition seeking a direction to the governor to accord permission to prosecute the chief minister was, in fact, an attempt to pre-empt the governor's decision.

The petitioners had sought the governor's sanction as contemplated under Section 19(i)(c) of the PCA and also issuance of a writ of quo warranto against the chief minister.

As regards the issuance of the writ of quo warranto, the bench observed that non-conduct of elections to nine municipalities did not constitute a breach of the Constitution and could not be a valid ground to oust a chief minister who enjoyed majority support in the assembly.

The term of the municipalities was over by May 31, 1995, on which date Chandrababu Naidu was not the chief minister, the bench pointed out.

Referring to the allegation of lawlessness in the state, the chief justice said the Constitution envisaged the imposition of President's rule in any state which witnesses a breakdown of the constitutional machinery. Such a power has to be exercised by the President with the aid and assistance of the Union Council of Ministers.

The chief justice pointed out that the schedule for the assembly elections was notified on July 11, and the petitioners had filed the writ petitions the next day. On this count, it would be reasonable to assume that the petition was an attempt to use the courts as a platform for gaining a political advantage at the hustings.

UNI

Tell us what you think of this report