Hyderabad: YSRC president Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy on Wednesday moved the Hyderabad High Court seeking a direction for investigation into the attempt on his life at the Visakhapatnam airport on October 25 through by any appropriate independent agency not functioning under the control of AP government and its DGP.
He told the court that he had moved the petition as he was aggrieved by the abuse of the criminal justice administration by the AP government presided over by Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu.
He said that the failure of the respondents to undertake such actions in a legally provided manner was being challenged as unlawful, ultra vires and unconstitutional.
He said that within an hour of the attack, the AP DGP had addressed a press conference to state that the assailant was a fan of the YSRC and the attack was done for the purpose of seeking publicity.
He said the Chief Minister had alleged that the attack was orchestrated to defame the government and part of a conspiracy to unseat him.
Post of civil judge
The Hyderabad High Court on Tuesday directed the Registrar (Administration) of the High Court to receive applications without insisting on three years experience as an advocate for the post of civil judge. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan and Justice S.V. Bhatt was dealing with batch of petitions by aspirants challenging the provisions contained in Rule 21 of AP State Judicial Service Rules 2017 issued in GO Ms No 29 and GO Ms No 59 in July 2017 by the TS and AP governments Counsels appearing for the petitioners submitted that the rule was violative of Articles 14, 16 and 19G of the Constitution as well as being contrary to law laid down by the Supreme Court. While granting the interim order, the bench observed, “At this point of time, we are unable to take the view that the prescription of a particular period of practice as an advocate as a pre-condition for competing for the post of civil judge is to be denounced at the threshold. “There are various facts and factors which appear to have gained aid of the High Court in modulating its view. The state government has accepted it.” The bench noted, “Having regarded to the contentions raised by the writ petitioners and the response on behalf if the High Court and the government, we are of the view that the questions raised herein require deeper consideration.”
