The Andhra Pradesh High Court’s decision to deny anticipatory bail to the civic official involved in the creation of bogus votes. Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao highlighted that the creation of such a large number of fake votes contradicted the essence of democracy.
Andhra Pradesh: This Month (1st May): The Andhra Pradesh High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to a civic official accused of downloading thousands of Elector’s Photo Identity Cards (EPICs) to create fake votes. The court emphasized the significance of each vote and the detrimental impact of fake votes on democracy.
READ ALSO: AP High Court: Grants Bail to Srinivasa Rao in Kodi-Kathi Case
The accused official, who held the position of Assistant Returning Officer (ARO), was alleged to have manipulated 34,376 EPICs, resulting in the enrollment of fictitious individuals and posing a serious threat to the democratic process.
Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao highlighted that the creation of such a large number of fake votes contradicted the essence of democracy.
The court observed that, given the accused official’s high-ranking administrative position, a higher level of vigilance and responsibility was expected in the execution of duties.
In its May 1 order, the Court noted, “Every vote carries significant weight, capable of influencing the nation’s course, and the proliferation of numerous fake votes starkly undermines democratic principles. Considering the Petitioner’s senior administrative role, a greater level of vigilance and accountability in duty execution is expected. Claiming ignorance regarding the downloading of EPICs is not justifiable.”
READ ALSO: LS Polls 2024 | Cash Transfers Stopped Until Voting On Monday by AP High Court
The accused official was booked for allegedly generating fake EPICs by downloading original EPICs from the Election Commission of India (ECI) website. The complaint was filed by D. Purandeswar, the State President of the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), with the ECI. The accused official denied the allegations and claimed that his login details had been shared with certain data entry operators and other officials who were involved in election duties.
The court noted that an inquiry conducted by an IAS officer found no evidence supporting the accused official’s claim. This raised concerns about the integrity of the electoral process within the jurisdiction. The court emphasized that such illicit activities severely undermine public trust in governmental institutions and erode the foundational principles of transparency, fairness, and accountability.
Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the need to restore public confidence in the integrity of governance, the court deemed a thorough investigation imperative.
The court opined that regardless of the motive behind the accused official’s actions, they must be unequivocally condemned. The transfer of credentials leading to the creation of fake votes, whether intentional or due to negligence, required a comprehensive investigation.
The court concluded that granting anticipatory bail to the accused official at this stage would adversely impact the ongoing investigation. Custodial interrogation was deemed necessary to extract all relevant information about the offense.
The Court’s order emphasized,
“These actions violate the core tenets of transparency, fairness, and accountability fundamental to democratic governance. Therefore, a thorough investigation into the allegations is crucial to preserve the integrity of the electoral process and rebuild public trust in governance.”
Regarding the transfer of credentials leading to fake votes, the Court stated,
“Whether intentional or negligent, a comprehensive investigation is warranted.” It further stated, “Regardless of motive, such actions must be condemned as they undermine electoral integrity and erode citizen trust in democratic institutions.”
Referring to the denial of anticipatory bail, the Court reasoned,
“Granting bail may hinder the ongoing investigation, given the seriousness of the accusations. Custodial interrogation is necessary to obtain crucial information.”
The judge emphasized that during an ongoing police investigation, the court should not delve into the merits of the criminal case. The police must be allowed to complete their investigation without hindrance.
The court further explained that granting anticipatory bail could hinder the interrogation process and the collection of crucial information. It highlighted that the prospect of being protected by a pre-arrest bail order might impede the success of the interrogation. Therefore, the court denied anticipatory bail to the accused official.
Case Title: P Chandramouliswar Reddy vs State of Andhra Pradesh
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
