MP Raghurama Krishna Raju case: Andhra Pradesh High Court serious over failure to follow its orders

Amaravati: The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently took strong exception to the 'brazen manner' in which an additional advocate general (AAG) defended the failure by state authorities to comply with the court's orders concerning the medical examination of Kanumuri Raghurama Krishna Raju issued in the wake of allegations that the MP was tortured while in police custody.

It could certainly be said that the court proceedings over the same escalated the 'confrontation' between the two organs of democracy, executive and the judiciary, in Andhra Pradesh.

In initiating the contempt proceedings against the police officials involved in the matter, the bench of the High Court consisting Justice Lalitha Kanneganti and Justice C Praveen Kumar, however spared the additional advocate general Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy from the proceedings.

The order castigated the conduct of the AAG in stating that "this court is surprised with the brazenness and arrogance that the additional advocate general advanced arguments, representing the state ... Brazenness is not outspokenness and arrogances is not fearlessness. Use of temperate language is not assertion of right nor is a threat in an argument," said Justice Kanneganti, who authored the lead opinion.

Justice Lalitha went on to emphasise that while a lawyer need not be subservient to the court while putting forward his case, he is not expected to be discourteous either.

"No one expects a lawyer to be subservient to the courts while presenting his case and not to put forward his arguments merely because court is against him, but he is not expected to be discourteous to the court or to fling hot words or epithets or use disrespectful, derogatory or threatening language or exhibiting temper, which has the effect of overbearing the court," she said.

Further, the court also made pertinent observations on the higher responsibilities cast on lawyers representing the state.

"A counsel who represents the state is required to state the facts in a correct and honest manner. He has to discharge his duty with immense responsibility and each of his action has to be sensible. He is expected to have a higher standard of conduct. He has a special duty towards the court in rendering assistance. It is because he has access to the public records and is obliged to protect the public interest. That apart, he has a moral responsibility to the court. When these values corrode, one can say 'things fall apart," Justice Kanneganti commented.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Kumar also echoed similar sentiments stating the AAG should have shown restraint while making arguments.

"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."

"No advocate has any right to talk in an intimidating manner. Advocate should not employ such tactics to wrench an order in favour and should never identify himself with the client. The arguments advanced by the additional advocate general are prima facie appear to be contemptuous in nature and this is a fit case for initiating contempt proceedings and referring him to the Bar Council for taking appropriate action. But this court showing its magnanimity is not proposing to take any action as of now. However, if this behaviour is repeated the court will not hesitate to take required action," the order stated.

The court, however, initiated contempt proceedings against the additional director general of police (CID), station house officer, CID police station, Mangalagiri and the superintendent, government general hospital, Guntur for failing to implement the High Court's orders dated May 15 and May 16.