3 Jun 2024 1:11 PM GMT
The Supreme Court today refused to entertain a plea filed by YSR Congress Party MLA Candidate Chevireddy Monith Reddy seeking repolling at some booths of the Chandragiri assembly constituency in Andhra Pradesh.
A vacation bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, declining to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. "we do not see any ground to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. This petition stands dismissed. However, [petitioner] will be at liberty to [...] rights, if any, in manner known to law. No opinion expressed on merits", it said.
Petitioner's case
Briefly put, CM Reddy initially approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court with a petition, stating that Chandragiri constituency (from which he was contesting) was categorized as vulnerable. Since the commencement of elections, there were instances of electoral offenses and violence, including by Pulivarthi Venkata Mani Prasad @ Nani, the contesting candidate of TDP.
On the polling day in the state, ie 13.05.2024, there were widespread instances of voter suppression, ballot tampering, and physical violence at several polling stations. Complaints were made to the authorities, but they did not pay any heed.
Subsequently, date and place for scrutiny of Form 17A and other documents were notified with respect to Chandragiri constituency. CM Reddy wished to agitate the issue of electoral offenses and violence on this occasion and reached the venue, however, he was excluded from the scrutiny process. Later, he was informed by the authorities that a few booths were randomly selected and verified, in which no discrepancy was found.
Respondents' case
The respondent-authorities challenged the maintainability of CM Reddy's petition in view of Article 329 of the Constitution (which restricts judicial interference during elections). They further averred that intimation to be present at the time of scrutiny is only to watch the proceedings.
High Court's Observations
Insofar as CM Reddy's contention that he was not given any opportunity at the time of scrutiny, and as such, the instructions/directions under 17A were not adhered to, the High Court observed, "the direction issued by the Election Commission of India though binds the Chief Electoral Officers, they cannot be treated as if they are law, violation of which would result in invalidation of the election either generally or specifically in the case of an individual."
It further noted that the authorities randomly selected the polling stations and did not find any irregularities at the time of scrutiny of the documents. "The Returning Officer/Observer did not recommend re-polling in any polling station in 166 – Chandragiri Assembly Constituency", recorded the High Court, while dismissing the petition on the ground of maintainability.
Aggrieved by the order, CM Reddy approached the Supreme Court.
Counsels for petitioner (CM Reddy): Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, Advocate Vivek Singh
Case Title: CHEVIREDDY MOHITH REDDY V. THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, DIARY NO. - 24933/2024