The Supreme Court Today (May 3rd) questioned the grant of interim protection by Andhra Pradesh High Court to YSR Congress leader and Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) Pinneli Ramakrishna Reddy in a case for damaging Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court scrutinized the interim protection granted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court to YSR Congress leader and Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) Pinneli Ramakrishna Reddy, who is implicated in a case involving the damaging of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).
The Vacation Bench, consisting of Justices Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta, vehemently criticized the High Court’s decision, calling it highly erroneous and unnecessary.
“Sheer mockery of the system. Highly erroneous grant of interim protection, where was the need?”
-the Bench questioned, indicating the gravity with which it viewed the High Court’s order.
The Supreme Court was addressing two petitions filed by a Telugu Desam Party (TDP) polling agent, who expressed fears for his life following poll-related violence in the Macherla assembly segment.
The first plea sought the cancellation of the High Court’s order that provided interim protection to Reddy, who serves as the incumbent MLA for Macherla.
The second plea underscored that despite clear video evidence implicating Reddy in the vandalism of EVMs, the police had inexplicably filed the case against unknown persons.
During the hearing, Justice Mehta remarked on the strength of the video evidence, indicating that it spoke volumes about the incident.
“Where was the question of bail? If we don’t stay it, it will be a mockery of the justice system. Allegations as seen have to be assumed as prima facie true,”
-Justice Kumar remarked, emphasizing the apparent evidence against Reddy and the questionable nature of the interim protection granted to him.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, representing Reddy, attempted to mitigate the Court’s concerns by assuring that Reddy would not enter the counting area or the relevant polling station. This assurance led the Supreme Court to stop short of staying the interim protection immediately.
However, the Court issued a directive that the Andhra Pradesh High Court should make an independent decision regarding the extension of Reddy’s bail plea on June 6, without being influenced by the earlier grant of protection.
The case has broader implications for the integrity of the electoral process and the judiciary’s role in safeguarding it. The TDP polling agent’s petitions highlight concerns about the handling of evidence and the impartiality of judicial protections afforded to political figures.
The Supreme Court’s pointed remarks and the directive for an independent review of the bail plea signal a firm stance on maintaining the sanctity of the judicial process and ensuring accountability, particularly in cases involving electoral malfeasance.
This development comes amid increasing scrutiny of electoral practices and the judiciary’s oversight role in maintaining the rule of law. The outcome of the High Court’s decision on June 6 will be closely watched, as it will set a precedent for how similar cases might be handled in the future, reflecting on the robustness of legal processes in upholding justice and transparency in the electoral framework.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on YSR Congress Party
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Elections
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
