Today(on 3rd June), The Supreme Court declined to order repolling at certain booths in Chandragiri assembly constituency, Andhra Pradesh, citing factual inquiries not within its purview under Article 136.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(on 3rd June), The Supreme Court has refused to mandate a fresh round of voting at particular booths in the Chandragiri assembly constituency of Andhra Pradesh (AP). This ruling is connected to the recent Andhra Pradesh Assembly elections, which faced accusations of irregularities.
A Vacation Bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta presided over the case. During the hearing, the Bench made a crucial observation, stating-
“There are factual inquiries; it is not within our purview to intervene under Article 136.”
This remark highlighted the Court’s stance on the matter, indicating that the issue at hand involved factual determinations that were beyond the purview of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution.
The appeal was brought before the Supreme Court by YSR Congress party leader, CM Reddy. Reddy challenged an earlier decision by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which had also refused to order repolling in certain booths of the Chandragiri assembly constituency. The High Court’s decision had left the matter unresolved for the appellant, prompting the escalation to the Supreme Court.
The context of this matter is the recent simultaneous voting in Andhra Pradesh for both the Lok Sabha and the State assembly. The elections were marked by a significant voter turnout and were closely contested, adding to the stakes involved in the dispute over the polling process at Chandragiri.
The Chandragiri assembly constituency, located in the Chittoor district of Andhra Pradesh, has been a focal point of political activity and contestation. Allegations of electoral malpractices and irregularities at some booths within this constituency led to calls for repolling, which the Andhra Pradesh High Court initially addressed. However, the High Court’s refusal to mandate repolling prompted the appeal to the Supreme Court.
ALSO READ: YSR Congress Party Challenges ECI in Supreme Court Over Postal Ballots Validity in Andhra Pradesh
Despite the appeal and the arguments presented by CM Reddy and his legal team, the Supreme Court maintained its stance, emphasizing the factual nature of the allegations. The Bench’s refusal to interfere under Article 136 underscores the Court’s adherence to procedural limitations and its reluctance to delve into matters requiring extensive fact-finding and evaluation, which are typically within the domain of lower courts.
The Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications for the Chandragiri constituency and the broader political landscape in Andhra Pradesh. It underscores the judiciary’s cautious approach in electoral disputes and its respect for the hierarchical judicial process, where factual disputes are expected to be resolved at the appropriate judicial levels.
This decision also reflects the complexities involved in electoral litigation in India, where allegations of malpractice and demands for repolling can have far-reaching consequences for political parties and candidates. The judiciary’s role in such matters is critical, balancing the need for judicial intervention with the principles of procedural propriety and judicial restraint.
As Andhra Pradesh moves forward from this electoral episode, the Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder of the rigorous standards applied in judicial review of electoral processes and the challenges inherent in proving allegations of electoral malpractices.
YSR Congress Party (YSRCP) candidate Reddy has raised serious allegations regarding the conduct of elections in Chandragiri, asserting that the voting process was marred by undemocratic practices. According to Reddy, the election in several polling stations was fraught with voter suppression, ballot tampering, and physical violence, which he claimed were orchestrated by the opposition, the Telugu Desam Party (TDP).
“Incidents of voter suppression, manipulation of ballots, and physical aggression were apparent at numerous polling stations.”
-Reddy alleged.
He highlighted that these activities were carried out “on the instigation of the opposition in the state, namely the Telugu Desam Party (TDP),” suggesting a deliberate endeavor to undermine the democratic proceedings.
Reddy also pointed out a notable procedural concern, observing that “the contested decision has not yet been posted on the court’s website,” which he contended undermined the transparency of the proceedings. Additionally, he disclosed that he was “barred from participating in the inspection of the voter registry,” a circumstance he considered highly irregular and prejudicial to the integrity of the election.
Reddy is represented by Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, a well-respected figure in the legal community known for his expertise in election law. The appeal was formally filed through advocate Vivek Singh, who has been instrumental in bringing this case to the Supreme Court’s attention.
The allegations of voter suppression and ballot tampering are particularly concerning in a democratic setup, as they strike at the core of the electoral process’s integrity.
ALSO READ: EVM Damage Case | High Court Grants Interim Protection from Arrest to YSRCP MLA
“The reported incidents of physical violence during the voting period are concerning and warrant comprehensive investigation.”
-Reddy insisted.
Reddy’s decision to file an appeal in the Supreme Court signifies the seriousness of the alleged electoral malpractices. The appeal seeks to address these grievances and ensure that the election results reflect the true will of the people of Chandragiri.
Case Title:
Chevireddy Mohith Reddy vs Election Commission of India and Ors.