VIJAYAWADA: The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Thursday raised a key question on how Village and Ward Volunteers could be considered ‘public servants’ under the legal definition. The court reminded the petitioner that the Volunteers were only paid an honorarium by the government for their services and not regular salaries.
Justice Y Lakshmana Rao, while hearing a criminal revision petition filed by Sarala and three others, made these observations while examining the validity of a criminal case filed against Jana Sena Party (JSP) chief Pawan Kalyan by the Guntur public prosecutor.
The High Court also directed the petitioners to place before it the petition filed seeking withdrawal of prosecution against Pawan Kalyan. The next hearing was adjourned for two weeks.
The case dates back to remarks made by Pawan Kalyan during his Varahi Yatra, where he alleged that information collected by the village volunteers was reaching “anti-social elements,” and that such misuse was endangering women’s safety. Taking objection to these comments, the YSRCP government, in February last year, had directed the Guntur Public Prosecutor to file a defamation case against him under IPC Sections 499 and 500.
However, the five volunteers who were named as complainants later submitted affidavits stating that Pawan Kalyan’s remarks did not personally harm their reputation, and that YSRCP leaders had obtained their signatures to file the complaint. They also gave statements to that effect before the magistrate.
Following this, the Guntur court public prosecutor filed a petition before the Guntur court seeking permission to withdraw the prosecution. After considering the facts, the Fourth Additional District Judge of Guntur allowed the withdrawal of prosecution in November last year.
Challenging this order, Sarala and three others approached the High Court, contending that the Guntur court lacked jurisdiction to grant such permission and that the matter should have been dealt with by the Vijayawada court for MPs and MLAs.
During the hearing, Justice Lakshmana Rao intervened and asked the petitioners’ counsel, advocate Jada Shravan Kumar questioning whether the Pawan Kalyan an elected representative and ncessity to refer the case to a special court.
Public prosecutor Menda Lakshmi Narayana, arguing for the state, maintained that the petitioners had no locus standi to file the criminal revision petition and urged the court to dismiss it.
