<p>BJP leader and advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay on Thursday asked Attorney General K K Venugopal to reconsider his decision declining consent to initiate criminal contempt against Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y S Jaganmohan Reddy and state advisor Ajeya Kallam over the allegations against judges.</p>.<p>In response to a request for consent, Venugopal on Monday said it would not be appropriate for him to deal with the matter as the CJI (since Reddy's letter was addressed to him) had been seized of the matter, though he agreed that the timing of the letter was "suspect" and conduct of the persons was "contumacious".</p>.<p><strong>Read: <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/a-g-declines-consent-for-initiating-contempt-proceedings-against-andhra-pradesh-cm-over-letter-to-cji-910334.html" target="_blank">A-G declines consent for initiating contempt proceedings against Andhra Pradesh CM over letter to CJI</a></strong></p>.<p>In a fresh letter, Upadhyay said, "The letter of Reddy to the Chief Justice was dated 6.10.2020 but sent to the CJI on 08.10.2020. This was a private missive with scurrilous contents. At this stage, it was left to the CJI alone to determine whether it constituted contempt. But, once Kallam on Reddy’s behalf called a press conference, read out a separate statement and released the letter to media and public on 10.10.2020, it ceased to be a private matter, and there was also an additional actor and an additional statement made."</p>.<p>He said the Chief Justice of India was seized of a complaint by Reddy against the judiciary, not a complaint of contempt against him and his Advisor. </p>.<p><strong>Also read: <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/law-students-write-to-cji-seek-action-against-andhra-pradesh-cm-jaganmohan-reddy-for-slanderous-allegations-against-judges-903333.html" target="_blank">Law students write to CJI, seek action against Andhra Pradesh CM Jaganmohan Reddy for slanderous allegations against judges</a></strong></p>.<p>"It is unclear how the fact that Reddy’s complaint pending with the Chief Justice can preclude my right to initiate criminal contempt against him and Kallam. Even if such were the case, consent could be granted by you, and my petition would be tagged for hearing," he asserted.</p>.<p>Referring to Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, he said the import of the provision was only to have the judgment of the highest law officer precede a motion being made by any person to initiate criminal contempt proceedings through the application of mind to the content of the alleged contempt. </p>.<p>"Once a conclusion is drawn that the contempt is prima facie made out, it would be necessary for the consent to follow," he maintained.</p>.<p>Under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, consent from the Attorney General or Solicitor General was required for initiating criminal contempt proceedings against anyone.</p>.<p><strong>Read: <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/plea-filed-in-sc-to-restrain-jaganmohan-from-making-allegations-against-judiciary-and-judges-901073.html" target="_blank">Plea filed in SC to restrain Jaganmohan from making allegations against judiciary and judges</a></strong></p>.<p>Notably, the A-G had said "objectionable statements" were made in the October 6 letter of the CM to the CJI. </p>.<p>He had said the timing of the letter as well as the press conference was suspect in the background of an order passed by Justice N V Ramana on September 16 directing pending prosecution of elected representatives to be taken up and disposed of expeditiously.</p>.<p>He also cited Upadhyay's letter to point out there were 31 criminal cases pending against the Chief Minister but he preferred to decline his nod for initiating the contempt proceedings.</p>
<p>BJP leader and advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay on Thursday asked Attorney General K K Venugopal to reconsider his decision declining consent to initiate criminal contempt against Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y S Jaganmohan Reddy and state advisor Ajeya Kallam over the allegations against judges.</p>.<p>In response to a request for consent, Venugopal on Monday said it would not be appropriate for him to deal with the matter as the CJI (since Reddy's letter was addressed to him) had been seized of the matter, though he agreed that the timing of the letter was "suspect" and conduct of the persons was "contumacious".</p>.<p><strong>Read: <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/a-g-declines-consent-for-initiating-contempt-proceedings-against-andhra-pradesh-cm-over-letter-to-cji-910334.html" target="_blank">A-G declines consent for initiating contempt proceedings against Andhra Pradesh CM over letter to CJI</a></strong></p>.<p>In a fresh letter, Upadhyay said, "The letter of Reddy to the Chief Justice was dated 6.10.2020 but sent to the CJI on 08.10.2020. This was a private missive with scurrilous contents. At this stage, it was left to the CJI alone to determine whether it constituted contempt. But, once Kallam on Reddy’s behalf called a press conference, read out a separate statement and released the letter to media and public on 10.10.2020, it ceased to be a private matter, and there was also an additional actor and an additional statement made."</p>.<p>He said the Chief Justice of India was seized of a complaint by Reddy against the judiciary, not a complaint of contempt against him and his Advisor. </p>.<p><strong>Also read: <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/law-students-write-to-cji-seek-action-against-andhra-pradesh-cm-jaganmohan-reddy-for-slanderous-allegations-against-judges-903333.html" target="_blank">Law students write to CJI, seek action against Andhra Pradesh CM Jaganmohan Reddy for slanderous allegations against judges</a></strong></p>.<p>"It is unclear how the fact that Reddy’s complaint pending with the Chief Justice can preclude my right to initiate criminal contempt against him and Kallam. Even if such were the case, consent could be granted by you, and my petition would be tagged for hearing," he asserted.</p>.<p>Referring to Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, he said the import of the provision was only to have the judgment of the highest law officer precede a motion being made by any person to initiate criminal contempt proceedings through the application of mind to the content of the alleged contempt. </p>.<p>"Once a conclusion is drawn that the contempt is prima facie made out, it would be necessary for the consent to follow," he maintained.</p>.<p>Under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, consent from the Attorney General or Solicitor General was required for initiating criminal contempt proceedings against anyone.</p>.<p><strong>Read: <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/plea-filed-in-sc-to-restrain-jaganmohan-from-making-allegations-against-judiciary-and-judges-901073.html" target="_blank">Plea filed in SC to restrain Jaganmohan from making allegations against judiciary and judges</a></strong></p>.<p>Notably, the A-G had said "objectionable statements" were made in the October 6 letter of the CM to the CJI. </p>.<p>He had said the timing of the letter as well as the press conference was suspect in the background of an order passed by Justice N V Ramana on September 16 directing pending prosecution of elected representatives to be taken up and disposed of expeditiously.</p>.<p>He also cited Upadhyay's letter to point out there were 31 criminal cases pending against the Chief Minister but he preferred to decline his nod for initiating the contempt proceedings.</p>
