New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday castigated Justice (retd) L Narasimha Reddy, the chairperson of the one-man Commission of Inquiry set up to probe alleged irregularities in the power sector during the tenure of ex-Telangana Chief Minister K Chandrasekhar Rao, for making observations about the merits of the matter at a press conference.
Under fire from the Supreme Court, Reddy, a former chief justice of the Patna High Court, withdrew from the panel, and the bench headed by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud asked the Telangana government to name his replacement. Justice Reddy’s withdrawal came during dramatic proceedings on the plea of the former chief minister who accused him of bias.
“Justice must be seen to be done. He is heading the Commission of Inquiry and expressed his views on merits in a press conference! We are giving you (Telangana government) an opportunity to replace the judge in the Commission of Inquiry. Appoint some other judge. Because there has to be an impression that he made observations on merits,” a bench headed by Justice Chandrachud said before rising for the lunch break.
“Error of approach does not make it a case of bias,” senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing the current Congress government led by Revanth Reddy, told the bench, also comprising JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.
The bench observed that the former judge should not have commented on the merits of the matter even before the inquiry had started.
Referring to the press conference, the bench said, “Had it just been indicating the modalities followed (by the commission of inquiry), we would have left it at that. Here, it is a little untoward for a person who is a judge... The problem is that there appear observations on merits. Let us also face it, it doesn’t bind anybody but the inquiry report affects the reputation of a person.”
“Justice should be visible in the conduct of the head of the Commission as well,” the CJI said.
Sensing the mood of the bench, Singhvi said he has taken instructions and the state government was willing to replace Justice Reddy. He, however, urged the court to not make it a part of the order.
Later, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Justice Reddy, told the bench that the former judge “does not intend to continue to act in pursuance of the notification appointing him
as Commissioner.”