Supreme Court Stays Arrest To YSR Congress Party's Social Media Head For 2 weeks, Asks him To Approach Andhra Pradesh HC

The Supreme Court today (December 2) granted protection from arrest to YSR Congress Party's social media head, Sajjala Bhargav Reddy to approach the Andhra High Court for appropriate remedy.

As per Reddy's writ petition, he has challenged Sections 111 and 113, BNS, which he argues has introduced the offences of the Organised Crime and Terrorist Act. He has also claimed that the ruling Chandrababu Naidu-led Telugu Desam Party is misusing these provisions against members of Jagan Mohan Reddy-led YSR Congress Party (YSRCP) to stifle dissent.

Various FIRs have been filed against the present petitioner under Section 111 of the BNS.

Before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Siddharth Dave (for petitioner) submitted that in all First Information Reports (FIRs) lodged against the accused, the incident took place prior to coming of the criminal laws. All three criminal laws were enforced from July 1 onwards.

On this, Justice Kant orally remarked that he partially agreed with what Sibal said but then the Court did not want to bypass the jurisdiction of the High Court. However, Sibal responded that since the BNS came into force, 147 FIRs have been lodged against Reddy within 1 week. That too, based on confessional statements of co-accused persons.

On this, Justice Kant in a lighter vein responded: "This is why say, long, long live the legal profession!"

He suggested that the petitioner should approach the High Court for interim relief and the Court will request the High Court to hear it expeditiously. To this, Sibal prayed: "Then, protect me, Milords!"

However, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, for the State, opposed it and stated that the petitioner was already protected by an interim order. Further, Luthra said that the allegations are serious. He said: "These are ladies, who are public representatives and they said the [ladies] are indulging in prostitution."

Justice Kant stated that although both sides are keen to show the different aspects of the case, the Court will not go into the merits. Justice Kant said: "Our High Courts are constitutional courts...We are not at all suggesting that a person, who is indulged in supposed all kinds of case, the law must take care of these kind of situation. We have no sympathy for anyone. If he is committing anything, he must face the consequences."

The Court ordered: "The petitioner claims himself to be head of social media, appears to be YSR Congress party-a political front, which is preliminary active in the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, has invoked this Court's jurisdiction Article 32 inter alia alleging that State of Andhra Pradesh and its authorities are misusing Section 111 of the BNS. This is being claimed alleged that multiple FIRs (details of 6 FIRs has been given) has been registered against him. It is claimed that contrary to the legislative intent of BNS of tackling serious organised offences, Section 111, the said provision has been misused as tool to stifle dissent expressed by the opposition parties.

Mr. Sibal and Mr. Dave, on behalf of the petitioner, has attempted substantiated the allegations made against State and its authorities. Luthra for State has referred to some material which according to him, prima facie shows how the petitioner is actively involved in alleged organised crime which is a continuing offence. He further points out that the petitioner has already approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, where in some anticipatory bail and interim protection has been granted... The relief sought and contention raised can be effectively raised before the High Court in a petition before the A. 226 and 528 (corresponding to S.482 CrPC) of the BNSS. Consequently, we dispose of the petition without any observations on merits... It goes without saying that the High Court will hear both sides before passing any others...Since the petitioner is apprehending his immediate arrest, which may disable him to approach the High Court, we direct that the arrest of petitioner shall retain stayed for 2 weeks to enable him to approach the High Court. It will be complete discretion of the High Court to extend or decline the interim protection granted above."

Case Details: S. BHARGAV REDDY v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.., W.P.(Crl.) No. 476/2024