VIJAYAWADA : On Thursday, the Andhra Pradesh High Court witnessed two simultaneous house motion petitions filed by the YSRC challenging the memos issued by Chief Electoral Officer Mukesh Kumar Meena on May 25 and 27 giving relaxation to certain norms of postal ballots.
At the end of the day, the court allowed the YSRC to move a house motion petition with the permission of the High Court Chief Justice for an urgent hearing of the petition, which was amended challenging the orders issued by the Election Commission of India on May 30. In its latest order, the ECI asked the election officials to consider the postal ballot as valid even if the postal ballot declaration form has no name, designation, or seal but has the signature of the attesting officer.
Challenging the CEO’s memos issued on May 25 and 27, YSRC MLC Lella Appi Reddy filed a petition in the High Court seeking directions for implementing the ECI orders concerning postal ballots sans modifications. The CEO and the Chief Election Commissioner were made respondents in the case.
Petitioner’s counsel S Vivek Chandrasekhar urged the High Court division bench to consider the petition for the urgent lunch motion. Agreeing to it, the division bench of Justice S Subba Reddy and Justice Pratapa Venkata Jyothirmai heard the petition.
Appearing for the YSRC, senior advocates P Veera Reddy and Vivek Chandrasekhar argued the case for nearly two hours. They said the CEO was acting above his role like nowhere in the country, and elaborated on the losses that might result in due to memos issued by the CEO.
They pointed out that as per the EC guidelines, a postal ballot has to be considered valid if the postal ballot declaration form has the attesting officer’s signature and his name, and designation handwritten on the form. However, in his memos, the CEO has given relaxation to the norms stating that the signature of the attesting officer is sufficient, which is in contradiction to the ECI’s guidelines. They further argued that the CEO issued such memos to favour certain political parties.
Intervening at that time, the court sought clarification from the ECI on the memos issued on May 25 and 27. Appearing for the ECI, senior advocate Avinash Desi said before issuing memos with regard to postal ballots, the CEO has sought the advice of the ECI. He said they are partially withdrawing the memo issued on May 25 and completely withdrawing the petition on May 27.
In the memo issued on May 25, the second para, which seeks to collect the specimen signatures along with names and designations of all the attesting officers deployed at various facilitation centres across the State from the election officers of all the districts and share the same with all the authorities concerned is now being withdrawn.
At the same time, he brought the latest order of the ECI issued on May 30 to the notice of the High Court and said it is being implemented across the country. Veera Reddy intervened and urged the court to record Avinash’s statement that the second para of the memo issued on May 25 and the complete memo issued on May 27 have been withdrawn. The court agreed to the same. At that time, Avinash questioned the maintainability of the petition and in response to it the court said it was not a regular case. Further hearing in the case was adjourned.
Later, Veera Reddy again came to the court hall and said they were filing an amended petition contesting the latest orders of the ECI and sought an urgent hearing. After some discussions, the court agreed to hear the petition.
At 9 pm, the hearing commenced and Avinash was asked if they had any objection. Avinash replied in negative and the amended petition was considered.
House motion plea with CJ permission
During discussion on the TDP’s implead petition, its counsel was directed to make amendments to their petition and only then it would be allowed. When YSRC’s counsel sought a hearing on the plea on Friday, the court allowed them to move a house motion petition with the CJ’s permission