‘No democratic system has exclusive powers’: Sajjala Ramakrishna Reddy

VIJAYAWADA: Advisor (public affairs) to the State government Sajjala Ramakrishna Reddy has found fault with the manner in which comments made by the judiciary are being interpreted and reported.

Pointing at reports on the comments made by the High Court in a section of the media, he opined that one arm of the democracy commenting on another arm is not proper.

Speaking to media persons on Friday, Sajjala said the manner in which a section of the media reporting and people doubting one of the constitutional setups because of the same is objectionable.

“In fact, no one knows what the court has commented. It is high time, the courts take a serious view of it,” he said. 

Sajjala’s comments gain significance in the backdrop of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh’s warning that any attempt to lower the dignity of the judiciary, one of the three pillars of democracy, might lead to internal strife.

Stating that no system in the democratic setup has exclusive powers, be it legislature, executive or judiciary, he said ‘balance of rule’ can only be there when the constitutional bodies maintain self-restraint and respect one another. “If not, it will dent people’s trust in democracy and send wrong signals,” he cautioned.  

He clarified he does not mean that the political system is all well. At the same time, he said, there is no guarantee that other systems are foolproof either. “Just taking advantage of immunity, commenting on other systems is not proper. We fear that if restraint is not maintained, it will create more problems,” he observed. 

Sajjala recalled the Supreme Court had questioned the High Court as to how it could issue a stay order even before investigation commenced. When a former advocate general filed a petition, the High Court had issued a stay and when the government approached the Supreme Court, there were some overall comments, which were serious, but not part of the order. “However, a section of the media has ignored them completely. How can they be selective?” he asked. 

Stating that some political forces want to take advantage by creating a rift between the two constitutional institutions, Sajjala urged the judiciary to take note of the same. Further, he wanted the comments of the court to be part of its order, so those at the receiving end, be it the government or a political party, can approach the higher court based on the same.

“Overall comments deny the victim’s rights. Asking not to comment on the issue is also not right. Commenting on courts and judiciary is nothing but creating problems for society, system, democracy and constitutional setup. Political comments do not matter, but the same cannot be said for constitutional institutions. Its impact will not be less severe than that of a tsunami,” he opined. 

Sajjala said the High Court’s comments were on social media and habeas corpus, of which social media is not under anyone’s control, while another was an isolated case. 

“We have all seen how the police system was in the past. In the last one-and-a- half years, it was transformed into a more service-oriented institution, receiving accolades from various quarters. The Chief Minister has given a free hand to police, but at the same time emphasised their responsibilities. Those who were out of line were taken to task, as evident from the arrest of a couple of inspectors. It is not for insulting them, but to prove that there is a corrective mechanism in place. No one wants to have conflict with the judiciary or disrespect it,” Sajjala added. 

What Sajjala says 

Just taking advantage of immunity, commenting on other systems is not proper.  We fear that if no restraint is maintained, it will create more problems.

Some political forces want to take advantage by creating a rift between two constitutional institutions.

The judiciary should take note of the same.

Comments can be part of order, so those at receiving end can approach higher courts.