Andhra Pradesh HC refuses to issue stay on new SEC functioning

VIJAYAWADA: Refusing to issue stay order preventing the newly appointed State Election Commissioner V Kanagaraj from discharging his responsibilities, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on Monday directed the State government, State Election Commission Secretary and Kanagaraj to file the counter by April 16. It further directed the petitioners to file the replies to the counter by April 17 and adjourned the case hearing to April 20. 

Dealing with the petition filed by former SEC N Ramesh Kumar challenging the ordinance amending the Panchayat Raj Act, which facilitated the appointment of Kanagaraj, while forcing the former to cease the office, the High Court bench comprising Chief Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Mallavolu Satyanarayana Murthy, refused to issue any stay order without hearing the arguments in the case. 

Apart from Ramesh Kumar, TDP leader Varla Ramaiah, former minister Vadde Sobhanadreeswara Rao, advocate Tandava Yogesh, BJP leader Kamineni Srinivas, G Mahesh and a few others, had filed a total seven petitions challenging the ordinance.

The HC bench conducted the proceedings through video conference. While Advocate General S Sriram appeared for the government, senior advocate Sarve Satyanarayana Prasad is the counsel for Kanagaraj. DV Seetharamamurthy appeared for Ramesh Kumar.  Placing his arguments before the bench, the counsel for the former SEC said there were circumstances to warrant the change in service rules of the State Election Commission and only during an emergency, an ordinance could be issued.  He argued that only with the intention of removing the petitioner from the post, the ordinance was issued and said it was anti-constitutional. 

However, Sriram said issuing the ordinance and appointment of the new SEC were in accordance with the Constitution. He said the ordinance was issued in accordance with Article 243K and explained that the State government has been making efforts to bring electoral reforms for sometime. When he said there was no urgency for hearing the case, the other advocates raised objections. Intervening, the bench said there was no need for going into background details and asked the government to file a counter explaining on what grounds the ordinance was issued.