Bench recuses from fee case after ex-judge memo

Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice K. Lakshman on Monday decided to recuse from hearing petition on the hike of fee for medical post-graduate courses in private medical colleges for 2020-2023.

The case had turned controversial after former judge, Justice P. Swaroop Reddy (retd), who is also chairman of the TAFRC (Telangana Admission & Fee Regulatory Committee), which fixed the fee, filed a five-page memo saying a judge should recuse from hearing the petitions. He levelled allegations against the judge.

Refuting the allegations, the bench observed that the harsh language used by Justice Reddy was unbecoming and went beyond the propriety expected from a retired High Court judge.

“As chairman of the TAFRC, he recommended that the state government allow the hike of fee in private medical colleges on March 17, 2020. When this bench on May 15 sought to know the reasons for recommendation of the fee hike, while dealing the case, they could not submit the reasons,” the bench said.

Moreover, the chairman filed a memo before the High Court asking it to move the case from the bench by making baseless allegations against one of the judges. It is nothing but a pre-determined view to avoid hearing of the matter prepared and pressed into service conveniently, to avoid furnishing of the information sought by the bench, the bench observed.

“Healthy and constructive criticism of judgments cannot amount to contempt of court. However, if the allegations go beyond the ambit of criticism and scandalise the court, then it amounts to contempt of court. The chairman tried to interfere with the administration of justice which amounts to contempt. But we don’t want to initiate contempt proceedings against him because we don’t wish to behave like him,” the bench said.

“With the antics of the chairman, the whole atmosphere has got vitiated. We are confident that the people of Telangana state and lawyers are well aware of our credibility and conduct,” the bench commented.

Referring to certain allegations, Justice Ramachandra Rao said both he and Justice Lakshman were born, brought up and studied in Telangana state and practiced in the common High Court for almost 25 years. “We have nothing against the people and the state of Telangana or the chairman, TAFRC,” he said.

“We would also like to point out that there are several cases where the state of Telangana has succeeded before me. In 2019-2020, I decided 280 contempt cases, 86 per cent were disposed of and closed. The memo of the chairman is false propaganda against me stating that I am against the Telangana state government,” Justice Ramachandra Rao said.

The bench said TAFRC was a quasi-judicial authority and the chairman in the memo defended his action but said the petitioner did not have locus standi. The chairman cannot in law defend himself by filing a memo before the court, he said.

“We close this issue arising of the memo,” the judge said and directed the registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice for further orders.