More particularly, in the background of matter still being at large before the jurisdictional High Court".
After hearing the parties, the Court took Singh's undertaking on record and prohibited Reddy from entering the counting station of Macherla constituency on counting day.
Initially, the bench was inclined to stay the High Court order, when Justice Mehta remarked, "let this be an example".
Later however, Singh apprised the court that there were other cases involving Reddy, which had not been appealed, and offered an undertaking that Reddy would not enter the counting station on counting day.
The relief of interim protection granted to Reddy by the High Court expires on June 5.
Pursuant to allegations of Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) destruction at a polling booth in Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court today restrained Macherla MLA Pinnelli Ramakrishna Reddy(YSRCP) from entering the concerned counting station and/or the vicinity of the same on 04.06.2024 (when counting will take place).
The vacation bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta was dealing with two pleas filed against Reddy by TDP polling agent-Namburi Seshagiri Rao, alleging that Reddy and his associates entered a polling booth at Macherla and destroyed EVMs. The petitioner expressed inter-alia an apprehension that the alleged incident, which took place on polling day, may be repeated on the day of counting, that is, 04.06.2024.
Passing the order, Justice Kumar orally dictated: "Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, we are of the considered view that the submission and undertaking given by Shri Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, to the effect that the respondent (accused) namely Pinnelli Ramakrishna Reddy would not enter the counting station where the counting of ballot shall take place on 04.06.2024 or within its vicinity, would suffice to allay the apprehension expressed by the petitioner. More particularly, in the background of matter still being at large before the jurisdictional High Court".
During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel drew the court's attention to certain photographs, stated to have been obtained from ECI's web-telecast. He also produced a video for the court's perusal and contended, "he (Reddy) is belittling the system...a sitting MLA goes to the polling station, destroys them and complaint is filed that unknown people have committed the offence...until High Court passes order, he is absconding".
Sr Adv Singh (for Reddy), on the other hand, doubted the video produced in court, saying it could not be said for sure as to who was there in the video. The bench however passed to him the device on which video was produced and observed that there were photographs as well. Justice Kumar noted that the video did rounds on social media as well.
However, Singh maintained that the video was not telecasted by ECI and the photographs were not official photographs.
In response, Justice Kumar was heard saying, "We will assume for a moment and ignore these photographs also...The very fact that the complainant says that the EVM and VVPAT both were taken out and destroyed after 8 people stormed inside the booth...".
At this point, Singh countered, "Who stormed in is my question". When the senior counsel sought to stress that Reddy came to be named in the second FIR (registered 10 days later), Justice Kumar said, "Allegations made in the complaint are prima facie to be accepted".
In the context of the suspicions surrounding the video produced on behalf of the petitioner, Justice Mehta commented, "this is not a doctored video, on the face of it".
After hearing the parties, the Court took Singh's undertaking on record and prohibited Reddy from entering the counting station of Macherla constituency on counting day. It further requested the High Court to dispose of the petition pending before it and listed on 06.06.2024 on its own merits, without being influenced by its earlier order granting interim protection to Reddy.
Notably, the court expressed serious reservations about the High Court's grant of interim protection to Reddy, calling it "a mockery of the system". Initially, the bench was inclined to stay the High Court order, when Justice Mehta remarked, "let this be an example". Later however, Singh apprised the court that there were other cases involving Reddy, which had not been appealed, and offered an undertaking that Reddy would not enter the counting station on counting day.
The relief of interim protection granted to Reddy by the High Court expires on June 5.
Case Title: Seshagiri Rao Namburi v. Pinnelli Ramakrishna Reddy and Anr, Diary No. 25204-2024 (and connected matter)
Click Here To Read/Download Order
