Former Chief Justice of India N V Ramana, who the other day cried foul over alleged witch-hunt of his family during the regime of YSR Congress party president and former chief minister Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy, has found no sympathy from people, including the Telugu Desam Party with which he had past affiliation.
In fact, Ramana is facing a storm on the social media following his recent remarks on how he and his family were allegedly targeted by the Jagan Mohan Reddy-led government before 2024.
The controversy was reignited after Justice Ramana, addressing students during a convocation ceremony at a private university in Amaravati, spoke emotionally about the “political pressures” and “malicious attacks” he faced from the Jagan government.
He recalled how attempts were made to intimidate him and even involve the families of judges in political conspiracies.
Justice Ramana also lauded the five-year-long struggle of Amaravati farmers against the government’s three-capital plan, calling their movement “an inspiration,” and praised the university for enduring through difficult times.
Interestingly, Justice Ramana’s comments did not evoke any sympathy and instead, he has been facing trolling on social media, including from the TDP supporters,
They have criticized the former CJI, accusing him of shedding “crocodile tears” over being targeted by Jagan.
Many users questioned why, during his tenure as CJI, Justice Ramana did not expedite hearings in corruption and murder cases involving the chief minister, such as the disproportionate assets and the Vivekananda Reddy murder cases.
Some went further, asking why Ramana had agreed to attend a felicitation event where Jagan was present, and why he allegedly met the chief minister and his wife privately at the Novotel Hotel in Vijayawada during his tenure.
“Being seated in the CJI’s chair is one thing, but what did you achieve while sitting there?” one post read, reflecting a sense of disillusionment even among those who once viewed him favourably.
Justice Ramana’s attempt to portray himself as a victim of political vendetta appears to have backfired among these circles, reigniting debates about judicial neutrality and the limits of the judiciary’s power in politically charged environments.