Supreme Court refuses to entertain a plea by former employee of slain Minister for clarification of its order
The Hindu
The Supreme Court observed that the issues raised by applicant Krishna Reddy, concerned questions of fact and law and in its order on July 6, the Court pointed out that he had never raised these questions in the earlier proceedings.
The Supreme Court on July 5 refused to intervene in a petition filed by the private assistant of murdered former Andhra Pradesh Minister Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy, who claimed that as ‘first informant’ he is the competent person to challenge the pardon and anticipatory bail granted to the approver in the case.
A Bench of Justices Krishna Murari and Sanjay Kumar observed that the issues raised by the applicant, M.V. Krishna Reddy, concerned questions of fact and law.
These questions require detailed consideration of arguments raised by parties, and cannot be dealt with by the Supreme Court.
Mr. Krishna Reddy had moved the Supreme Court for a clarification of its October 10, 2022 order. The October 2022 order had said the “competent person” could challenge the pardon and anticipatory bail granted by the trial court to Shaik Dastaghiri, the approver in the murder case, in “appropriate proceedings”.
Mr. Krishna Reddy urged the Supreme Court to clarify that as the first informant in the case, he was the competent person. He further sought a clarification that a challenge by him to the anticipatory bail and pardon given to Mr. Dastaghiri would come within the ambit of “any appropriate proceedings” mentioned by the Supreme Court in the October 2022 order.
In its order on July 6, the court pointed out that Mr. Krishna Reddy had never raised these questions in the earlier proceedings.
“The present issues flagged for clarification were never raised by the parties in the original proceedings… Such new arguments which strikes at the core of the case cannot be decided by a mere clarification application. Such questions are to be answered by the appropriate forum as and when questions are posed by the parties,” the Bench observed in the order, disposing of the case.