Breaking: Andhra High Court Court Stays Election Commission's Direction To Keep Panchayat Minister Under 'House Arrest' After A Sunday Hearing

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has stayed the order of the State Election Commission directing 'house arrest' of State Minister for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development P. Ramachandra Reddy.

Justice DVSS Somayajulu, who held a special sitting on Sunday (7th February) to consider Minister's plea challenging the order, observed (prima facie) that the State Election Commission does not have the power to direct that the Minister should be confined to his residential premises till 21.02.2021.

The court, however, upheld the part of the Commission's order restraining the Minister from speaking to the press for a period of fifteen days till the election process is completed.

The commission had passed these orders after it took note of statements made by Minister in a press conference held on 05.02.2021 which allegedly amounted to veiled threat etc., to the SEC and the officers. The commission directed that the Minister shall be confined to his residential house till the elections are concluded by 21.02.2021. However, he was permitted to attend his constitutional duties and legitimate responsibilities as a Minister, seek medical aid etc. 

The court noted that the following statement was made by the Minister: "The State Government would make a note of the Officers (Collectors and Returning Officers) and would definitely (khachithanga) take action against them and also blacklist them for the period in which this Government is in power." The judge observed:

"While the present Government is encouraging unanimous elections in the opinion of this court, the statement of the petitioner that action would be taken against the Officer and that they would be blacklisted cannot be said to be an action that can be classified as propagation of Government Policy. If the petitioner had limited himself to the advantages of unanimous elections or the incentives provided the submission of the learned senior counsel can be accepted. However, in the prima facie opinion of this Court, the statement of the petitioner that action will be taken definitely and that the Collectors and Returning Officers would be blacklisted is an interference with the exercise of duties by the Officer during elections.".

Regarding the 'house arrest' part, the court observed:

As per the settled law, no person can be deprived of the life and liberty except as per the procedure established by law and what is called due process of law. The case law in this regard is too well settled to be repeated. The power to restrain a person's free moment or a house arrest can only be imposed if it is supported by law. In the opinion of this Court, the power of superintendence and control over the elections and its process cannot extend to passing an order restraining the petitioner from leaving his house. Although, in the later part of the order, some concessions are given, this Court after a prima facie examination of the issue is of the opinion that the State Election Commission does not have the power to direct that the petitioner should be confined to his residential premises till 21.02.2021.

The bench upheld the order restraining the Minister from speaking to press, the court said:

However, as far as the press statements etc., issued by the petitioner are concerned, this Court holds that the petitioner was not merely advocating or propagating his party's policies. The language used leaves much to be desired. The Returning Officers and Collectors were told that they would face disciplinary action and would be black listed. In the prima facie opinion of this Court, this would interfere with their free discharge of duties more so, during the election period. It is also settled law that the freedom of speech is not absolute and that a reasonable restriction can be imposed. In the opinion of this Court, if the restriction that was imposed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case considering the ground reality is seen, this Court finds that there is a underlying purpose to the restriction imposed which is to prevent statements that will interfere in discharge of the electoral duties by the Officers. The prevailing conditions make it clear that there is no lovelost between the contesting parties and the ground situation is surcharged with the differences and mutual accusations. The evil sought to be remedied and the urgency also points out to the need for imposition of this restriction.

Click here to Read/Download Order

Read Order