The High Court of Andhra Pradesh took a very serious view of the contempt of court committed by two IAS officers. Judge Battu Devanand issued non-bailable warrants against two officers B. Rama Rao and K. Praveen Kumar. The police were ordered to present them before the court by March 19. The High Court issued the orders to Vijayawada police commissioner and Guntur SP.

Once again, the defiance of the Government officials has become a subject of debate in the litigation cases. The High Court ordered the Government to consider the promotional opportunity for boys’ residential hostel employee G Chandramouli in the Vizianagaram district. But those orders were not implemented by the IAS officers. After that, the aggrieved employee filed a contempt of court petition. The court ordered Government Principal Secretary K. Praveen Kumar and BC Welfare Director B. Rama Rao to appear before the court on February 5. However, the two top officials did not appear before the court and filed a petition explaining reasons for their inability to appear before the court.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Wednesday suspended some of the directives issued by the State Election Commission (SEC), on ward volunteers and reaccepting nominations of candidates in some municipalities even after the end of the procedure.

State Election Commissioner Nimmagadda Ramesh Kumar directed district collectors to keep ward volunteers away from municipal polls both directly and indirectly.

He ordered that all the rules which apply to government employees will also apply to the volunteers according to the model code of conduct.

The SEC also directed that the responsibility of distributing voters slips should not be given to the volunteers.

Kumar issued these orders claiming suspicions that volunteers may allegedly behave in a biased way in favour of some candidates.

The High Court ruled against Kumar’s order of taking back the tablets given to volunteers as part of their governance delivering duties, all of which now stand cancelled.

Likewise, the Court gave an interim suspension of the SEC’s order allowing renominations in Tirupati, Rayachoti and Punganuru municipalities as the nomination procedure has already been finished.

The Court ordered that no new opportunities should be given for nominations.

Before the Court’s orders, ruling party leaders criticized the SEC for issuing orders restricting the volunteers and allowing renominations in these three civic bodies.

State Election Commissioner Nimmagadda Ramesh Kumar has stuck to his schedule to conduct the local body elections in February. His lawyer filed a counter in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, stating that the State Government’s arguments on Coronavirus vaccination had no strength. It was because it would take not less than three to six months before the vaccine would be available for the people. The clinical trials were still continuing.

The SEC lawyer told the court that the AP Government had also not finalised any dates for vaccination since there was no certainty on the vaccine availability and supply. Moreover, the medical and health department staff or officials would not be used in the local body elections.

As such, the uncertain vaccine program would not be a hurdle for the local polls. Moreover, the Government had no right to approach the court on such pretexts.
The SEC told the court that nothing would come as a hurdle for polls going by the manner in which the elections were conducted in Bihar, Rajasthan and the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC).

The SEC argued that the Government of India has not yet given any direction for vaccination programs anywhere in the country. A national level policy is yet to be finalised on vaccines. Hence, the AP Government cannot cite vaccination as a reason to postpone the polls.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh is speeding up hearings on the petitions against the YCP Government’s move to shift AP Capital City. In its latest hearing, the HC bench asked the AP Government’s advocate as to how the 3 Capitals bill was brought when there was the Presidential order for setting up the High Court in Amaravati.

The court reminded the Government that the President had notified the High Court for the newly created Andhra Pradesh in Amaravati. But, the State Government went ahead and passed the bill naming Kurnool as the principal seat of the High Court of AP. The court further told the Government that it was not proper on its part to argue that the Kurnool High Court was just a proposal. How can it be called just a proposal when the Government has passed the bill?

Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, who represented the AP Government, tried to explain to the court that ultimately, the Government would have to wait for the Presidential notification even for Kurnool as the seat of the High Court. But the court questioned where the need was for making the law and proceeding to shift the High Court without considering the existing Presidential order.

The HC bench had also questioned the necessity of forming not one but 3 Committees on the issue of forming 3 Capitals in the name of the decentralisation of the administration.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has been expressing its frank opinions against the AP Government and the AP Police on a variety of issues these days. Now, the court reprimanded the police for going to a lawyer’s house in connection with a case investigation. The judge made it clear that the police have no authority or jurisdiction to visit and disturb the lawyers at their residences however important the issue might be.

The court made these comments during the hearing of a habeas corpus petition filed by Vijayawada resident Reddy Govinda Rao who claimed that his son and daughter in law were illegally arrested by the police. The judge passed serious comments, saying that many such instances of police highhandedness are coming to the court’s notice. The court would decide whether there was a breakdown of law and order in the State these days.

When the police said that they visited the lawyer’s house by mistake, the judge asked why the policemen concerned did not immediately leave the place once they realised their mistake. The policemen remained at the lawyer’s house for over an hour and a half. The court postponed the hearing and said that the police should not cause inconvenience to the lawyers in this way.

Curious arguments took place in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on the religion of Chief Minister YS Jaganmohan Reddy. His name is obviously a Hindu name. But the petitioner says Jagan is a Christian. The court has told the petitioner to prove that the CM is a Christian so that it would be able to take up his petition on the issue of violation during the entry into TTD Tirumala temple.

The High Court did not accept the argument made by petitioner A Sudhakar Babu’s lawyer when he said that Jagan Reddy along with his family members took part in the evangelical meetings very often. This was proof enough for his Christian faith. The judge simply said that since the name of the CM was sounding like a Hindu name, it would not be possible to proceed further without first confirming the true religion of Jagan Reddy. The court postponed the hearing for October 22.

The petitioner was asking the court to order action against the Board and officials of the TTD for not making CM Jagan to submit ‘faith declaration’ before entering the Tirumala Temple during Brahmotsavams. The petitioner’s lawyer told the court that only the Hindu devotees can havy entry into Sri Vari Temple. A non-Hindu should have to submit a declaration saying that he was entering the temple since he has faith in Lord Venkateswara Swamy. But, this declaration form was not taken from CM Jagan Reddy. Ministers like Kodali Nani said that there was no need for taking such declarations which was in violation of the endowments act rule 136 and 137.

When the petitioner asked the court to seek clarification from Jagan Reddy on his religion, the judge said that it would not ask from its side and it was for the petitioner to submit the proof of the CM’s religion.

In a big relief to Bacchus worshipers, the Andhra Pradesh government on Wednesday allowed people to buy liquor from other states with certain riders.

Hearing a petition, the High Court directed the state government to permit people to buy liquor from other states as per GO411 .The HC directed the AP government to implement GO411 and allow people to buy not exceeding three bottles of liquor from other states. The petitioner argued that the Andhra Pradesh police was arresting people and slapping cases for buying liquor from other states even though GO411 allows people to buy three bottles of liquor. The petitioner appealed to the High Court to direct the government to implement G0 411.

The petitioner also contended that people were forced to buy liquor from other states after the Andhra Pradesh government had hiked the liquor rates by 75 per cent ever since the stores were reopened in May after nearly two months closure on account of the lockdown since March 22.

This forced several people from Andhra Pradesh to buy liquor from bordering states, including Telangana where liquor prices were relatively cheaper.

The high prices and low availability of liquor has even led people to consumer hand sanitizers.

The Andhra Pradesh police had arrested several people for buying and bringing liquor into the state from neighboring states.

Recently, several people in Andhra Pradesh died after consuming alcohol-derived sanitizer, as local liquor shops were closed due to a coronavirus-related lockdown.

With the HC order, people can now buy not more than three liquor bottles from neighboring states.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court postponed its hearing on phone tapping to August 27. The court heard the arguments made by the petitioner’s lawyer Sravan Kumar today. It also instructed the petitioner to include the additional affidavit filed by his lawyer in the main petition. When the court asked for proof and maintainability of the complaints, Sravan Kumar argued that their petition was valid going by the past Supreme Court judgements.

The controversy surrounding phone tapping became a heated political issue now. Though the media reports came about tapping of phones of judges, it has acquired a political colour with the TDP entering the scene. On its part, the ruling YSRCP was dimissing it as a baseless allegation and challenged Chandrabab Naidu to submit proof if any. The High Court took up hearing of the case considering the serious nature of violations of the laws governing the right to privacy and fundamental rights of citizens.

In this case, the petitioner was demanding an inquiry by a special experts team from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) as the people in power were involved in the phone tapping. It was being described as an attack aimed at defaming and undermining the judiciary.