Supreme Court Restrains YSRCP MLA Pinnelli Reddy From Entering Counting Station

Image for: Supreme Court Restrains YSRCP MLA Pinnelli Reddy From Entering Counting Station

📷 Image Credits: Indian Legal News

The Supreme Court, on June 3, 2024, barred YSR Congress Party MLA Pinnelli Ramakrishna Reddy from entering the vote counting station of the Macherla assembly constituency on June 4. This decision comes in light of allegations that Reddy smashed an Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) at a polling station in Andhra Pradesh. The vacation bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta viewed a video of the May 13 incident and expressed concerns about the anticipatory bail granted to Reddy, calling it a ‘sheer mockery of the justice system’. The court directed Reddy to refrain from entering the counting station on June 4 or being in its vicinity.

Reddy, who is the YSRCP candidate for the Macherla seat, reportedly entered the polling station with supporters and damaged VVPAT and EVM machines. The high court had previously granted anticipatory bail to Reddy in the cases filed against him, subject to certain conditions. The Supreme Court requested the Andhra Pradesh High Court to adjudicate on the petitions related to the cases against Reddy, scheduled for a hearing on June 6, without being influenced by the interim protection granted earlier.

The petitioner, Telugu Desam Party (TDP) polling agent Seshagiri Rao Namburi, raised concerns about the incident and sought cancellation of the interim protection from arrest given to Reddy. Despite video evidence of the alleged EVM damage, Rao claimed that the police had not taken action against the MLA, but rather against unknown individuals. Senior advocate Vikas Singh, representing Reddy, emphasized that the identity of the individuals involved in the incident was uncertain. However, the bench opined that the video evidence suggested the allegations were credible and needed to be acknowledged.

The Supreme Court’s decision to restrain Reddy from entering the counting station reflects a critical stance on the integrity of the electoral process. As the case unfolds, it raises questions about accountability and transparency in the electoral system, highlighting the importance of upholding the sanctity of democratic practices.