Opinion: An open letter to Chief Justice of India

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy writes: This is with reference to your recommendation of Justice N.V. Ramana to the Centre as the next CJI – you are so quick on this but collegium failed to reach consensus on the selection of Women judge Justice B. V.Nagarathnam, who will become CJI in 2027 if selected.

By Dr S Jeevananda Reddy  Published on  29 March 2021 7:02 AM GMT
Opinion: An open letter to Chief Justice of India

Urgent need to review:

Hon'ble Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde

Chief Justice

Supreme Court of India

Tilak Marg; New Delhi 110 001

Dear Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde,

"With All Respect"

"Free speech of the citizens of this country cannot be stifled by implicating them in criminal cases" the Supreme Court said on Thursday

This is with reference to your recommendation of Justice N.V. Ramana to the Centre as the next CJI – you are so quick on this but collegium failed to reach consensus on the selection of Women judge Justice B. V.Nagarathnam, who will become CJI in 2027 if selected.

Sir, to clear the path for this action, you dismissed a complaint by Andhra Pradesh (AP) state Chief Minister (CM) on June 6, 2020 against Justice N. V. Ramana. You said that it is after an elaborate in-house inquiry.

In this connection, I in fact sent two mails dated 14th & 18th September 2020 for your consideration. But I am sorry to say that it is clear that the judges pre-determined on the issue dealing with AP CM's complaint on Justice Ramana case. In my 18th September 2020 mail, I appealed "--- In view of these, to uphold justice in the true spirit of the constitution, the Chief Justice may like to ask the Justice N. V. Ramana --- to go on long leave". But this was not followed as it is normal practice. That means your judgment is not reflecting "justice in true spirit". This is clearer from reports that states "The SC issued a terse two-sentence statement on Wednesday ---- the Supreme Court was dealt with under the in-house procedure and the same, on due consideration, stands dismissed. It is to be noted that all the matters dealt with under the in-house procedure being strictly confidential in nature are not liable to be made public". If that is the case how the following derogatory in nature statements against AP CM appeared in media [25th Times of India pages 1 & 7] -- It says two judges gave lengthy written opinions on the complaint and termed the charges "false, frivolous, baseless, and motivated" and said these were leveled to "browbeat the Judge".

The language used here appears to be not a legal language but it appears to be "you scratch my back – I scratch your back" type language only. It appears that it will be a serious warning to others not to venture to make complaints against any sitting judge.

When somebody complains, he should be given an opportunity to intervene but this is not followed. Means something fishy!!! Why I said this is that reports say that "Justice Ramana was heading a bench which had passed orders to expedite snail-paced criminal trials against sitting and former MPs/MLAs" – is behind the AP CM's complaint. The issue pertaining to the trail of AP CM, in fact, N. Chandrababu Naidu (CBN) is the main culprit in the case of charge sheet 3 with reference to charge sheet 7 under quid pro co. CBI did not touch him. I was a CFE committee member of APPCB, relating to the industry that comes under Charge Sheet 3 wherein I put my dissent note. However, the fact is Justice Ramana did not touch his friends, particularly CBN who is avoiding criminal cases by getting stay orders for years or using "not before me clause" to get friendly judge(s) to rescue him [a few days back also got one such stay order].

Passing on time with stay orders is more dangerous and they never will be punished? This is the case with people like CBN, who is close to the judiciary – 25th March 2021 media reports say that "CM's political rival Chandrababu Naidu, with whom Justice Ramana was close during his advocate days". The "snail-paced criminal trials one day they get punishment or clearance". In fact by delaying trial by cooking up by investigating agencies create bad feelings in the public light. Is it not so, Sir (CJI)?

Also, the AP High Court ordered CBI to enquire against Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy [he has no political power] and as well N. Chandrababu Naidu [who was CM of AP for two terms]. CBI under quid pro co super cyclonic speed filed charge sheets against Jagan Mohan Reddy and put him behind bars. In the case of CBN, the file was simply dumped in the cupboard. A former CBI director was a Minister in CBN cabinet and the JD of CBI was his subordinate. Is it not injustice, why Justice Ramana in his order reprimanded CBI officials for such a biased job? Jagan was put behind bars and CBN has been living in Air Conditioned rooms enjoining with family and friends with high-level police protection. Justice Ramana did not take note of it either.

I wrote an open letter to Justice Altamas Kabir, Chief Justice of India on 11th February 2013 relating – Sub: Urgent Appeal to review the misuse of not before me and quid pro co clauses by a full bench of the Supreme Court of India, Reg. – here I referred to collegium system, stay orders issue also. --- We hereby appeal Hon'ble Chief Justice of India to look in to the validity and pros & cons involved in the use of these clauses, namely use of not before me by judiciary and quid pro co by investigating agencies that are causing injustice to political rivals and saving the friendly criminals/corrupt politicians through a full bench of the Supreme Court of India. ----- Unfortunately in the recruitment of judges, there is no independent body like UPSC and thus lacking integrity with collegium system. ---- Majority of the judges belong to particular industrial/business/political groups. Now, even though it is changed [collegium system] a little in the recruitment of judges but yet the panel members of such recruitment committees belong to the past vested group recruiters only. The judges who are part of this game, when become members of committees to select new judges, they naturally pick up their own mentors choice persons that once again continue the evil path declared by the clause. ----- Copy of this letter was sent to the PM. The government brought out a bill to replace the collegium system but killed the bill by Supreme Court majority bench to safeguard their power in the recruitment of judges.

  • CJI should have given an opportunity to AP CM to defend his case after Justice Raman's Response. Why this was not done? Is it justice?
  • Why Justice Ramana did not consider the misuse of Not Before Me, Quid Pro Co, Stay orders, Collegium system of recruitment to clean up judiciary & investigating agencies in India?


Let me present a classic example of how the judiciary functions in AP: When environmental groups file a case, AP legal corridor openly predicts the outcome of the case based on the bench. Environmental groups filed a PIL to protect two drinking water reservoirs that are protected by a GO111 issued by CBN government in 1996. Within a month's time, the CBN government violated the very same GO111. Environmental groups filed PIL in AP High Court. As predicted the PIL was dismissed. Then the environmental groups approached Supreme Court. The court found GO111 follows the Environment Act and introduced a precautionary principle for drinking water resources and canceled the CBN government permission. Again within few days, the CBN government caused a major violation on the name of Shamshabad Airport in violation of GO111 & the Supreme Court order of December 2000. Environmental groups filed PIL in AP High Court and the very same judge dismissed it in support of the CBN government. Environmental groups paid an advocate to file the case in SC but he cheated them. This facilitated the real estate mafia to mint lakhs of crores at the cost of environmental/two drinking water bodies destruction. I approached CBI to stop this destruction. They expressed their inability to help me in this. Then I filed a PIL on behalf of environmental groups in 2007. Luckily the case dealt with by the non-CBN group judge bench. The government submitted a memo upholding the GO111 and agreed to create "Lake Protection Authority". However, the government failed to implement them. Now, these drinking water bodies became part of other filthy lakes with the government's apathy in favor of realtors even though several persons filed PILs in the high court and NGT. Even to date, AP High Court is running around one person (CBN) with the tacit support from his old friend (see above) Justice Ramana. After seeing all these, I feel like asking myself "Do we need such a judiciary at all?"

I am herewith appealing to the Respected President of India to restore the dignity-sanctity of the judiciary by not appointing as Chief Justice of India "people with poor ethics".

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Formerly Chief Technical Advisor – WMO/UN & Expert – FAO/UN

Fellow, Telangana Academy of Sciences

Convenor, Forum for a Sustainable Environment

Next Story
Share it