Justice B Sudershan Reddy: From Lokayukta under BJP govt in Goa, to INDIA bloc's V-P candidate
Cut to 2025, and the same opposition leaders from the same parties have selected the same former judge as their vice-presidential candidate, following the resignation of Jagdeep Dhankhar.
New Delhi/Hyderabad: In March 2013, as former Supreme Court judge Justice B. Sudershan Reddy was being sworn in as the first Lokayukta of Goa, opposition leaders from the Congress and NCP protested on the road leading to Raj Bhavan, where the ceremony was being held.
He was appointed a permanent judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in May 1995, and was Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court in December 2005. He was elevated to the Supreme Court in January 2007, and retired in July 2011.
Former Supreme Court judge Justice M.B. Lokur describes him as 'warm-hearted' and a 'no-nonsense person'.
A lawyer, who worked with Justice Reddy in Hyderabad, recalled how Justice Reddy would always personally see him out each time the lawyer visited his house. 'This is a small but telling gesture, showing his graciousness and genuine character,' the lawyer told ThePrint on condition of anonymity.
Announcing Justice Reddy's candidature, Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge described Justice Reddy as one of India's most distinguished and progressive jurists.
'He reflects, fully, the values that shaped our country's Freedom Movement so profoundly, and the values on which our country's Constitution and democracy have been anchored. All these values are under assault and, therefore, our collective and determined resolve to fight this election,' Kharge added.
Justice Reddy will contest against the NDA's nominee, C.P. Radhakrishnan, in the election scheduled for 9 September.
From Lokayukta to anti-CAA protest panel
Justice Reddy was appointed the first Lokayukta of Goa, and assumed charge in March 2013. He was sworn in the presence of the then Chief Minister Manohar Parrikar, a year after the Bharatiya Janata Party-Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party alliance defeated the incumbent Indian National Congress government.
Incidentally, when Justice Reddy was being sworn in as the Goa Lokayukta, opposition MLAs remained absent, as per reports from the time. While they did not formally boycott the ceremony, critics accused Justice Reddy of being a 'yes man' of CM Parrikar.
His appointment was challenged in the Bombay High Court's Goa bench, by social activist Aires Rodrigues, the spokesman of the front named 'Together for Goa', which included Congress, NCP, Shiv Sena and Goa Su-Raj Party members. But the petition was rejected, with the court ruling that there was no infirmity in the decision making process.
However, he resigned within months, citing personal reasons.
In 2020, Justice Reddy was a part of a people's tribunal along with other retired judges, activists, doctors and lawyers, that concluded that there had been a complete collapse of law and order in Uttar Pradesh, with the police action on those peacefully protesting against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act. The tribunal also included retired Delhi High Court judge, Justice A.P. Shah.
'The state of affairs in UP shows a complete collapse of rule of law. In fact, the very state administration that is charged with protecting the rule of law is perpetrating violence upon its own people,' the tribunal had reportedly concluded.
Salwa Judum to Ambani judgment
Justice Reddy delivered several landmark judgments during his tenure as a judge. One of the most prominent is the 2011 judgment which he delivered along with Justice S.S. Nijjar, banning Salwa Judum, a government-sponsored vigilante movement to fight against Naxals in Chhattisgarh.
Days before his retirement in 2011, he had also criticised the then UPA government at the Centre for not 'showing seriousness' in bringing back black money kept in bank accounts abroad. The bench, comprising Justices Reddy and Nijjar had then constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to take steps to bring back unaccounted money to the country.
Justice Reddy was also a part of the bench which ruled in favour of Mukesh Ambani's Reliance Industries (RIL), ruling that it did not need to supply gas to the company owned by estranged brother Anil Ambani at a previously agreed price under a family MoU. Justice Reddy delivered a separate opinion in the case, agreeing with the majority view on a few aspects, while disagreeing with it on another issue.
In 2009, Justice Reddy headed the three-member panel that was constituted by then Vice President Hamid Ansari to look into the allegations against former Calcutta High Court judge Justice Soumitra Sen, after a motion of impeachment against the latter was admitted in the Rajya Sabha.
Justice Reddy has been vocal after his retirement as well.
In 2018, he questioned the delay in the bifurcation of the Hyderabad High Court despite four years passing since the formation of the two states of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.
'I do not understand why the high court is not bifurcated till date. Failure to establish separate high courts for Andhra Pradesh and Telangana is nothing but insulting to the people of the state and its lawyers,' he was quoted as saying at the time.
More recently, Justice Reddy led the Independent Expert Working Group (IEWG) constituted by the Telangana government, which submitted its report on the state's Social, Educational, Economic, Employment, Political and Caste (SEEEPC) survey to Telangana CM A. Revanth Reddy last month.
He is currently on the Board of Trustees of the Hyderabad-based International Arbitration and Mediation Centre (IAMC).
(Edited by Viny Mishra)
Also read: In INDIA bloc's choice for V-P candidate, a bid to wage 'ideological battle', put NDA allies in a spot
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
7 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Day before SIR hearing, EC files compliance report before SC
New Delhi: The Election Commission of India (ECI) has filed a compliance report before the Supreme Court ahead of Friday's hearing on the ongoing revision of Bihar's electoral rolls, which has drawn scrutiny after large-scale deletions. The Supreme Court building in New Delhi. (HT Photo) A person aware of the development told Hindustan Times that the Commission has submitted a 'three-to-four page compliance report which says that all the suggestions made by the Supreme Court on August 14 have been complied with promptly.' The source added that the ECI has also placed on record a status report, giving details of the directions issued to the District Electoral Officers (DEOs) as well as the reports received back from them. 'The Commission had asked all 38 DEOs to furnish the status of compliance with the Court's orders, and these have now been compiled and submitted,' the person said. CEC Gyanesh Kumar, at a press conference on Sunday had said that the Commission has complied with SC's directives in '56 hours.' The Court, on August 14, had recorded the ECI's consent to adopt interim measures designed to improve transparency in the electoral roll revision. These measures require the online publication of the names of nearly sixty-five lakh voters who appeared in the 2025 rolls but are missing from the draft rolls. Each district's website is to host booth-wise data, searchable by EPIC number, along with reasons for exclusion. The Bench had set a deadline of August 19 for completing the exercise. To ensure that the exercise is not limited to digital publication, the Bench also directed wide publicity. 'The lists must be publicised in vernacular newspapers with wide circulation and broadcast on television and radio,' the Court noted, adding that district-level officials should also use their social media platforms to alert voters. Further, the booth-level officers were instructed to display the excluded-voter lists at Block Development Offices or Panchayat offices, so that citizens in rural areas could physically inspect them. The Bench also required that the notices should expressly inform citizens that they may file claims for inclusion in the rolls, accompanied by a copy of their Aadhaar card. A consolidated state-level list is also to be made available on the website of the Chief Electoral Officer of Bihar. 'The idea is to ensure that no eligible voter is left without recourse,' the Bench had observed while fixing the matter for monitoring on August 22. Friday's hearing, advanced to 12 pm from the initially scheduled 2 pm, is expected to be brief as Justice Bagchi, who leads the Bench, has to preside over a special bench at 3 pm. 'The court might give further directions after taking a note of the report,' the person cited earlier said.
Indian Express
7 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Opp threatening judges, undermining EC, want infiltrators to be voters: Yogi Adityanath
Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath said on Thursday that the Opposition parties were threatening judges delivering impartial verdicts, undermining the Election Commission of India (ECI) while conspiring to turn infiltrators from other countries into legitimate voters. Addressing a gathering at an event to mark the third 'Hindu Gaurav Diwas' in Aligarh, Adityanath accused these parties of dividing the society in the name of PDA (Pichhda, Dalit and Alpsankhyak). The programme, observed on the occasion of the death anniversary of former Uttar Pradesh chief minister Kalyan Singh, was also attended by Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, UP Deputy Chief Minister Brajesh Pathak, BJP state president Bhupendra Chaudhary and senior party leaders Uma Bharti and Kalraj Mishra among others . Pradhan also targeted the Congress, the Aam Aadmi Party and their INDIA bloc allies, saying, 'It is natural for those who defy the law to be afraid, because their parties are filled with criminals.' Questioning the 'morality' of the Congress and its allies, he said Kalyan Singh had chosen to resign instead of ordering firing on Ram bhakts during the Ram Mandir movement. 'On the other hand, Arvind Kejriwal did not relinquish power even after going to jail on corruption charges,' he said. Earlier, speaking at the inauguration of a cement plant in Etah, Adityanath Chief Minister Adityanath said the Congress and the Samajwadi Party pushed the country into an identity crisis after centuries of exploitation by the Mughals and British, and that the two never worked for inclusive development, serving only their own families. The district once synonymous with crime and mafia rule has now transformed into a hub of investment and industry, he claimed. 'Eight to nine years ago, Etah was known for land encroachment, where the poor had no voice. Today, it is known for law and order, power generation and industrial growth,' he said. The Chief Minister said the nearby Jawaharpur thermal power plant generates 1,500 megawatt (MW) power, while Shree Cement's unit worth Rs 750 crore has created 500 direct jobs and more than 3,000 indirect employment opportunities. 'This investment is not only about jobs but also about strengthening of trade, transport and distribution networks — the real foundation of Atmanirbhar Bharat and Viksit Bharat. There was a time when even a commodity like cement was rationed and would be available only through connections, making house construction extremely difficult,' he said. 'How could development taken place with such an intent and policies?' he asked. India, which was at 11th spot in the world economy by 2014 due to the policies of the Congress and SP, has now grown to become to 4th place under PM Modi and is set to become the third-largest economy within two years, he claimed. Uttar Pradesh too, Adityanath further claimed, has risen from the seventh-largest state economy in 2017 to the second-largest today, the CM added. He credited this economic turnaround to strict action against the mafia and rioters, which restored investors' confidence. 'The state has received investment proposals worth Rs 45 lakh crore, out of which Rs 15 lakh crore have already been executed, creating employment for 60 lakh youth,' he said. He added that 60,244 youth, including many from Etah, were recruited into the police force without any discrimination. Under the Mukhyamantri Yuva Yojana, 70,000 young entrepreneurs received interest and guarantee-free loans to set up their own enterprises. The Chief Minister noted that 'bells and ghungroos' of Etah's Jalesar remain an integral part of worship and musical performances. The state is preparing a roadmap for Viksit Bharat by linking this cultural heritage with modern development, he said, adding, 'In the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council, a 24-hour-long discussion was held on key sectors, and experts will now visit every district to train youth and prepare district-level roadmaps with public participation.' The state government, the Chief Minister said, will honour every promise made under the industrial policy.
Hindustan Times
39 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Can't let Governors sit on bills indefinitely: SC
New Delhi: Permitting governors to sit indefinitely on bills passed by state legislatures may render the democratic process and the will of the people 'defunct', the Supreme Court observed on Thursday, as it continued hearing the presidential reference on whether the courts can prescribe timelines for gubernatorial and presidential assent. The Supreme Court building in New Delhi. (HT Photo) A constitution bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai and justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar is examining President Droupadi Murmu's Article 143 reference made in May. The reference seeks clarity on the top court's April 8 ruling which, for the first time, laid down timelines for governors and the president to decide on state bills pending before them. 'If a particular function is entrusted to the governor and for years he withholds it, will that also be beyond the scope of judicial review of this court? When this court has set aside constitutional amendments taking away judicial review as violating the basic structure, can we now say that however high a constitutional authority may be, courts will still be powerless if it does not act?' the bench asked. The bench also pressed the Centre to explain what remedy exists when governors indefinitely delay action. 'Under Article 200, if we hold that the governor has unlimited power to withhold a bill for time immemorial, what is the safeguard for a duly elected legislature? Suppose a legislature elected by a two-thirds majority passes a bill unanimously, and the governor simply sits on it, it would make the legislature totally defunct,' it further remarked. Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, countered that while the court's concern may be justified, it cannot assume jurisdiction to set time limits where the Constitution is silent. 'A justification can never confer jurisdiction. Every problem in this country may not have a solution in the Supreme Court. Some problems must find solutions within the system,' he said. According to Mehta, the solution was in the 'political process, not judicial directions'. He argued that chief ministers could engage directly with governors, prime ministers, or even the President to resolve such impasses. 'Such issues have been arising for decades but have always been resolved through political statesmanship and maturity. Why cannot we trust other constitutional functionaries? The remedy ultimately will lie with Parliament by way of an amendment, not by judicial legislation,' Mehta submitted. At this, the bench interjected: 'When there is no outer limit, can a constitutional interpretation be left to a vacuum? Though a time limit may not be prescribed, there must be some way the process works. There cannot be a situation where not acting on a bill itself is a full stop… nothing further.' The bench also questioned whether judicial review could be completely excluded. The court observed: 'The decision may not be justiciable, but the decision-making process certainly falls within the ambit of judicial review.' Mehta, however, warned that opening the door to scrutiny would lead to 'multilevel challenges' at every stage of a governor's or president's decision under Articles 200 and 201. 'Our problem is every step before the final decision will also be challenged because they can also constitute a 'decision',' he argued. He cited judicial precedents where the court held that fixed timelines for criminal trials could not be judicially prescribed, to reinforce his submission that timelines in constitutional processes too cannot be judicially imposed. But the bench pressed further, citing petitions already filed by Kerala, Punjab, and West Bengal. 'Suppose a decision is not taken for four years. What happens to the democratic set-up of the government? What happens to the will of the two-thirds majority of the legislature?' it asked. Mehta responded with an analogy: 'Take the example of a trial pending for 10 years. Can the President step in and declare that the punishment is deemed to have been undergone because the judiciary has delayed? Separation of powers means some issues are non-justiciable.' The court, however, made it clear that it was not dealing with a hypothetical concern. 'We are having petitions from at least four states,' the court underlined. The presidential reference, prompted by the court's April judgment in the Tamil Nadu case, asks whether the judiciary can impose timelines on constitutional authorities like governors and the president when the Constitution itself is silent. In that ruling, a two-judge bench also fixed a three-month deadline for the president to decide on bills referred by a governor, and one month for a governor to act on re-enacted bills. It had even invoked Article 142 to deem 10 Tamil Nadu bills as assented to, after holding that the governor's prolonged inaction was 'illegal'. Mehta criticised the notion of deemed assent. 'Deemed assent would mean your lordships substituted yourselves for the governor and declared the assent deemed to have been granted. Article 142 cannot be used to amend the Constitution,' he argued. The bench, however, maintained that courts cannot abdicate their role as custodians of the Constitution. 'Every wrong has to have a remedy. Whether the hands of the constitutional court will be tied when a constitutional functionary refuses to discharge their function without any valid reason? Whether the court will say we are powerless?' the bench asked. Arguments on the reference will continue on August 26.
