New Delhi: The Attorney General for India, K.K. Venugopal, has declined his consent to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt against the Andhra Pradesh chief minister, Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy and principal advisor to the chief minister, Ajeya Kallam. The request for his consent was sent by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who alleged Reddy’s allegations against Justice N.V. Ramana, the CJI-in-waiting after the current CJI, S.A. Bobde, retires next April, in a letter and later making them public, amounted to criminal contempt.Although Venugopal declined his consent, he has agreed with Upadhyay that the chief minister made objectionable statements in the letter he wrote to CJI Bobde on October 6. Kallam was sought to be arraigned as an accused in the contempt proceedings, because he released Reddy’s letter to the press at a press conference on October 10.“The Chief Justice is, therefore, well aware of the nature of the allegations contained in the said letter. I am of the opinion that the timing itself of the letter, as well as its being placed in the public domain through a press conference could certainly be said to be suspect, in the background of the order passed by Justice Ramana dated 16.09.2020, directing pending prosecutions of elected representatives to be taken up and disposed of expeditiously. As you yourself have pointed out, there are 31 criminal cases pending against the Chief Minister,” Venugopal wrote in his letter to Upadhyay.Also read: In Y.S. Jagan v Justice Ramana, Modi Government Wins, Regardless of OutcomeIt is quite unusual for the AG to comment on the merits of the proposed contempt proceedings, especially when he is declining consent. Yet he wrote in his letter: “In this background, prima facie, the conduct of the said persons is contumacious.”If the AG agrees with Upadhyay’s request for consent, then propriety would require him not to express his prima facie view about the chief minister’s conduct. And if the CJI’s consideration of the matter prevents the AG from dealing with the matter, as he claims in his letter, then how did he feel free to express his prima facie view on it, especially as it is likely to influence the way the CJI may deal with the chief minister’s letter?Justice N.V. Ramana. Photo: Wikimedia Commons“To deal with the matter” should mean either grant or denial of consent. As the AG was declining consent under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, he could have simply said he was doing so because the matter was pending before the CJI or that he disagreed that the conduct of the chief minister is contumacious. Instead, the AG contradicted himself by agreeing with Upadhyay that the chief minister’s conduct is contumacious, but refused to exercise his powers to grant consent under Section 15 (1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, because of extraneous reasons. Many would consider it an abdication of responsibility, because if the Act aimed to prevent the AG from granting consent on the ground that the matter is pending before the CJI, then it would have expressly said so.The AG’s non-exercise of power under the Contempt of Courts Act would only encourage an alleged contemner to write to the CJI making serious allegations against a judge, and if the CJI is unable to take prompt action on them, it would restrain the AG from granting consent under the Act.In the case of the recent contempt proceedings against lawyer, Prashant Bhushan, the Supreme Court took suo motu notice of the allegations against him as the petitioner, Mehak Maheshwari, could not obtain the consent of either the AG or the Solicitor General, as required under the Act. But Bhushan had also written to the CJI on why Justice Arun Mishra (since retired) could not hear the contempt allegations against him, as Justice Arun Mishra had consistently exposed his bias against Bhushan in a few cases earlier.The pendency of Bhushan’s letter before the CJI did not deter Justice Arun Mishra from going ahead with the proceedings against Bhushan. The AG, during his oral submissions before the Arun Mishra bench, pleaded for dropping the proceedings against Bhushan, and for not punishing him. But the AG never referred to the CJI being seized of Bhushan’s letter as a reason for dropping the proceedings against him or for not imposing a punishment on him, after the court found him guilty of contempt.The reason is the CJI is seized of Reddy’s letter against Justice Ramana, in his capacity as the administrative head of the Supreme Court. It is for the CJI to decide whether the allegations require to be probed by an in-house committee. If the CJI decides that there is no prima facie substance in Reddy’s allegations against Justice Ramana to merit a probe by an in-house committee, then the AG’s denial of consent to Upadhyay may appear incorrect.Also read: Andhra Pradesh HC Says Persons in High Posts ‘Waging War’ Against Judiciary, Orders CBI ProbeOn the contrary, if the CJI decides that an in-house probe into the allegations may be justified, then the AG may be correct in his denial of consent, as two parallel proceedings on the same matter may not be justified.Two parallel probes into the allegations of sexual harassment by the former CJI, Ranjan Gogoi (now MP) did not bring glory to the Supreme Court. While the in-house committee found Justice Gogoi innocent but didn’t divulge its report, the report of the other committee headed by Justice A.K. Pattanaik, appointed by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court presided by Justice Arun Mishra on the larger conspiracy, is yet to see the light of the day.Therefore, by declining his consent, the AG is perhaps indicating the possibility that the CJI may indeed consider an in-house probe into Reddy’s allegations as appropriate and justified.By denying his consent to Upadhyay for the reason that that the CJI is seized of the matter, the AG may not have realised that his decision is open to such an interpretation. If it is a valid one, the AG’s decision may perhaps suggest what the CJI is contemplating administratively on the approach to be adopted on Reddy’s allegations against Justice Ramana.