AP moves SC against HC gag order on Amaravati
The Andhra Pradesh government on Monday moved the Supreme Court against the High Court’s September 15 order barring the media from reporting on an FIR filed by the AntiCorruption Bureau (ACB) on a former advocate general and 12 others. It had also issued a stay order on further investigation into the alleged irregularities in purchase of land in the Amaravati capital region.
The petition filed by the AP government asked the Supreme Court to quash the gag order and posed nine questions pertaining to the law.
The petition asked whether the investigation could be stayed when the FIR had not been even questioned, and whether a stay on investigation could be granted as a matter of routine.
The AP government petition as-ked whether issuing a stay order on an investigation which was at the threshold would impede the criminal machinery and was against the basic tenets of criminal jurisprudence.
The petition asked whether any proposed accused or suspect had the right of hearing in the court even before the registration of the FIR under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. It asked whether the High Court ought to have interfered with the investigation process as it was the domain of the investigation agency.
The petition asked whether the investigation process against any person ought to be stayed when there are prima facie allegations against the proposed accused or suspect in the FIR. It also asked whether protection orders could be granted against accused persons who had not even approached the court. The petition asked whether the Advocates Act, 1961 prescribed protection to an advocate accused of having committed cognisable offence under the IPC, 1860.
The state government requested the SC to consider quashing the gag order and the stay order on investigation. It opined that the petition by the accused for gag order was misconceived and said that investigation was the domain of the investigation agency and the courts were not supposed to interfere. The government said there was no provision in the Advocates Act, 1961 prescribing protection to the advocates.