Today, on Monday, the Andhra Pradesh High Court handed over the case concerning the derogatory and objectionable social media posts that reduced the integrity of the judges and judiciary to the CBI. Hearing the petition on Monday, the High Court observed that the remarks made against the judiciary by the YSRCP leaders on social media were harmful to democracy. The court provided the CBI with two months' time to present a report. Anguish has been expressed by the HC bench that such findings have diminished the dignity of the judiciary, one of the three foundations of democracy. The court noted that such remarks could lead to internal strife and erode public confidence in the judiciary. Following its earlier serious objections against the state government, the High Court handing the case over to the CBI comes in the wake of the CID not filing cases against the ruling YSRCP leaders.
The High Court criticized the state government on October 8 for not filing cases against its representatives. The court noted that the comments made by Assembly Speaker Tammineni Sitaram, Deputy Chief Minister Narayana Swamy, MP Vijayasai Reddy of Rajya Sabha, MP Nandigam Suresh of Lok Sabha and former MLA Aamchi Krishna Mohan on social media amounted to an assault on the judiciary. “Cases were immediately reported against people who make anti-government remarks, so why is the government quiet when it comes to comments made against the judges and the courts. Why no cases were filed against the public representatives?". The High Court noted that remarks against the courts and judges are a direct assault on the judiciary. The petitioner brought to the court's notice that several YSRCP representatives, including Tammineni Sitaram, Vijayasai Reddy, Nandigam Suresh and Amanchi Krishna Mohan, made objectionable remarks against the judiciary. Sitaram had challenged the recent verdicts of the High Court against the policy decisions of the state government. Tammineni Sitaram had argued that if the courts could determine what the state government should do, there was no need for the people to elect MLAs and MPs. What is the goal of the elections? It seems that the judges want the government's affairs to be run. The state can be governed from the halls of justice. If that is the case, he said, there is a need to elect a chief minister, MLAs, or MPs.
The High Court had fumed at Sitaram when hearing the petition, stating that it was unfair on the Speaker's part to make such comments. Vijayasai Reddy has made questionable remarks against the judiciary of Andhra Pradesh. “The judiciary of the AP is not neutral and it must be halted. It is disappointing that the court is hampering the fraud investigation. We have the right to raise the issue in Parliament as lawmakers and talk about the functioning of the judiciary in AP," Vijaysai Reddy said in Rajya Sabha. In addition to using abusive language against them, the High Court initiated contempt proceedings against YSRCP MP Nandigam Suresh and 48 others for intimidating the Supreme Court and High Court judges. Another YSRCP leader, Amanchi Krishna Mohan, found fault with the CBI's High Court Directive to investigate police high-handedness against Dr Sudhakar Rao.
The court sent notices of contempt to both leaders for their comments that reduced the court's dignity. Nandigam Suresh accused CBN, the former AP CM, of running the High Court. Prior to 30 minutes or 10 minutes of its pronouncements, he alleged that Naidu was privy to court verdicts. Transport Minister Perni Venkataramaiah claimed that some people who worked for the TDP are now in the judiciary to work for the benefit of TDP President and former Chief Minister CBN in the most dramatic declaration that undermined the judiciary and cast aspersions on the courts. In Parliament, YRCP Lok Sabha MP Midhun Reddy said the Andhra Pradesh High Court was curbing the state's media freedom. His comment came a day after a gag order was imposed by the High Court prohibiting the media from publishing or airing reports in the Amaravati land case involving a FIR.