Hyderabad High Court forces Telangana, Andhra Pradesh on trials in graft cases

Hyderabad: Two years of continuous monitoring of progress regarding pending sanctions for the prosecution of public servants involved in graft cases by the Hyderabad High Court has forced the Andhra Pradesh and Telangana governments to grant sanctions in all cases including the infamous liquor syndicates scam.

V. Ravi Kiran Rao, special public prosecutor representing the Anti Corruption Bureau, placed a report before a division bench comprising Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar that both the governments have accorded sanctions to all the cases recommended for prosecution by the ACB.

He submitted that the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh government had given sanctions in some cases pertaining to the Liquor Syndicate scam and the cases which remained were accorded sanction by the Governor during the President’s Rule in Andhra Pradesh.

The bench was dealing with petitions by O.M. Debara a resident of the city, and P.V. Krishnaiah, a practicing advocate of the HC, against the liquor syndicates scam and also to condemn the inaction of the state governments in giving sanctions for prosecution.

Hoping that both the state governments will expedite prosecution in the cases and complete it in a period of one year, the bench adjourned the case.

After the intervention of the High Court the sleuths of the Anti Corruption Bureau has finally filed a chargesheet against several public representative including former Excise minister Mopidevi Venkataramana, against the brother of former PCC president Botsa Sathyanarayana and also the son of former minister Dharmana Prasad Rao and Kurnool former MLA Y. Chenna Kesava Reddy.

During the earlier hearing of the liquor syndicate scam, the petitioners brought to the notice of the court that in 1999 the AP government has brought out a memo preventing the ACB from proceedings against MLAs, MPs and other public representatives involved in graft cases.

As per the memo, the Anti Corruption Bureau cannot issue FIR against the public representatives without the permission of the government, even if it finds prima facie evidence against them during the preliminary inquiry.

The bench on Feb 26, 2014, declared the memo as unconstitutional and cleared the way for the Anti Corruption Bureau to file charge sheets against the public servants involved in corruption cases.

Bar Council moves appeal in Hyderabad High Court

The Bar Council of India on Monday moved an appeal before the Hyderabad High Court challenging the order of a single judge directing the BCI and the Centre to take immediate steps to ensure that the state Bar Council for the newly formed Telangana state becomes operational.

A single judge on Nov. 12, passed an order holding that the BCI has no power to authorise the AP Bar Council to act as the Bar Council for Telangana and also held that the provisions of the Advocates Act, cannot confer such extraterritorial jurisdiction to the BCI to any state Bar Council.

The BCI represented by its secretary submitted the appeal contending that the single judge order was contrary to law as it failed to appreciate the fact that Section 30 (1) of the AP Reorganisation Act, stated that from the appointed day the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad shall be the common high court for the AP and Telangana and till a separate High Court for the state of Andhra Pradesh is constituted.

The BCI submitted that intention of the Parliament was very clear that the present Bar Council shall continue to be the Bar Council for both the states till a separate HC is set up for AP and the introduction of the word "Telangana" in Section 3(1)(a) of the Advocates Act would come into force only from the date of constitution of High Court for AP.

The BCI said that the Reorganisation Act, has not mentioned about dissolution of the existing Bar Council on the formation of two separate states on the appointed day and Section 34(2) of the Act does not provide for transfer of advocates from the appointed day, but provides for such a transfer from the date mentioned under Section 31(1) which relates to formation of separate High Court.