Can’t do whatever you like: AP High Court to Jagan Govt on revenge politics

The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Wednesday stayed the government orders (1411 and 344) through which the government constituted a Cabinet sub-committee to scrutinise major policies and programmes of the TDP regime, and a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the alleged irregularities.
Separate petitions
During a hearing on separate petitions filed by TDP leaders Alapati Rajendra Prasad and Varla Ramaiah, Justice D.V.S.S. Somayajulu ordered that the stay be imposed on the impugned G.Os but gave no date for the next hearing. 
The petitioners argued that the policy decisions taken by a government could not be examined by the subsequent government and that there was no provision in the Constitution for such a review.
‘Not retrospective’
The Executive actions of a government were prospective and not retrospective and the people’s mandate in favour of the party which came to power did not include a review of policy decisions of the outgoing government, the TDP leaders stated in their petition, suggesting that the entire exercise had malafide intentions and lacked legal basis.
Gag order on media reporting
Meanwhile, in another order, the Andhra Pradesh High Court barred the media from reporting on the FIR registered by the state’s Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) against several people.
The FIR also names a former Advocate General for Andhra Pradesh in relation to allegations of corruption and illegal land transactions during the shifting of the state’s capital to Amaravati as per the High Court order. Subsequent to the lodging of the FIR, the former AG approached the High Court seeking a gag order on reportage of the ACB’s action.
Before the Bench of Chief Justice JK Maheshwari, counsel for the petitioner stated that former AG was being targeted by the state government. It was stated when action was not found justified by central agencies, the state agencies through the police are working in a malafide manner against him.
It was also noted that when this matter earlier came up before another judge of the High Court, he had recused, ordering that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice. 
In the meantime, it was contended on behalf of the former AG that an FIR was registered today to give "political colour" to the matter. This FIR was published on social media and newspapers, leading to “scandalizing the authority with a malafide intention, by way of media trial”.
In this light, a prayer was made to call for all the records pertaining to any investigation being conducted by any of the state agencies, and that further inquiry may be stayed and no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner.

Photo Gallery