HYDERABAD: Telangana government on Tuesday took a ‘U’ turn before the High Court, regarding furnishing the video footage of the Governor’s address to the House on March 12, by informing to it that it is unable to give any assurance on providing the footage as it is the property of the Legislative Assembly.
While hearing the petition of expelled Congress MLAs Komati Reddy Venkat Reddy and A. Sampath Kumar, Justice B. Siva Sankar Rao questioned the action of the Telang-ana Speaker and made it clear that if the video footage is not furnished before the court, it will compel the court to draw an adverse inference in the case and pass the orders.
The Judge cited the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Gopal, Krishnaji Ketkar vs Mahomed Haji Latif & Ors wherein it was ruled that when important documentary evidence is withheld, technical plea cannot prevent adverse inference.
In view of the reports that Telangana Advocate General D. Prakash Reddy has resigned and the state government had engaged Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court Harish Salve to appear in this case, everyone in the court expected the presence of Salve , but he didn’t turn up.
Lawyers in the court hall felt that in view of the AG’s resignation, Salve might have refused to appear in the case.
When J Ramachandra Rao, Additional Advocate General appearing in the case, was asked by the Judge about furnishing the video footage before the court and also reminded the assurance of the AG about submitting the footage, he replied that he is appearing for the state government and the video footage is with the Assembly and he cannot give any assurance on behalf of the Assembly.
Replying to a query from the Judge, the AAG said that the court has no power to direct the Legislative Assembly to engage the counsel.
The counsel for the petitioner contended that the court has the power to direct the Legislative Assembly to engage the counsel. When the AAG urged the court to grant four weeks time to file a counter affidavit, the Judge said that the court had already given sufficient time and it can grant only a week’s time to file the counter.
While adjourning the case to April 3, the Judge made it clear that the court will pass the order on the day.
