Two ministers within the cupboard of chief minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy have filed a grievance that Kumar made objectionable feedback on them, and the meeting speaker has referred it to the privileges committee.
The Kakani Govardhan Reddy-headed committee is now weighing choices by way of authorized opinion on summoning the state election commissioner to look earlier than the House for a trial, marking a uncommon authorized tussle between two constitutional our bodies.
The Reddy authorities has been at loggerheads with Kumar for practically a yr on the difficulty of holding polls for the native city and rural our bodies. Soon after the chief minister opposed the choice of the state election commissioner to postpone the polls citing Covid-19 pandemic final March, an ordinance was issued eradicating Kumar and appointing a retired Madras High Court choose in his place.
Kumar, who was reinstated after a chronic authorized battle the place the Supreme Court faulted the Reddy authorities’s determination, just lately issued a notification to carry polls for native our bodies which have been opposed by the Reddy dispensation.
Expressing unpreparedness to carry polls at a time when the federal government equipment was engaged with the Covid-19 vaccination programme, the state authorities moved the Andhra Pradesh High Court and later the Supreme Court. Both courts disagreed with the federal government’s competition and upheld the choice of the election commissioner to carry polls, which at the moment are scheduled to start on February 9.
Kumar, ever since he was reinstated, has been writing to the Andhra chief secretary and governor, alleging non-cooperation by the authorities within the election course of, and has even moved courts searching for contempt proceedings against authorities officers. Invoking plenary powers, he had sought the removing of sure bureaucrats, district collectors and high police officers from ballot duties and really useful appointments of their place.
Finding fault with the best way Kumar was invoking his plenary powers, YSR Congress lawmakers and ministers accused him of crossing the road that they suspected have been benefitting opposition events.
Kumar took to the discover of the governor the alleged assaults on him by the ruling social gathering lawmakers, ministers and advisors, searching for motion against them for violation of mannequin code of conduct and focusing on the constitutional authority discharging its ballot duties.
Panchayat raj minister Peddireddy Ramachandra Reddy and municipal administration minister Botcha Satyanarayana have complained to the speaker that Kumar, in his letter to the governor, made libellous remarks that have an effect on their privileges.
Privileges committee chairman Kakani Govardhan Reddy, who held a digital assembly of the panel on Tuesday, seen that there have been situations the place the state election commissioner was summoned by the meeting and initiated motion. Citing a March 2008 case in Maharashtra the place the meeting despatched the then state election commissioner Nandlal to a two-day easy imprisonment for contempt of the House, Reddy mentioned authorized opinions have been being sought. An clarification from Kumar would even be sought, he mentioned.
Nandlal, a 1969-batch IAS officer recognized for bursting the Alibaug land rip-off, had a virtually two-year-long standoff with the Maharashtra authorities over holding polls to native civic our bodies. He had ordered that polls to the civic our bodies can be held by the SEC and never by the state. Opposing this, the lawmakers of the then ruling Congress-NCP mix moved contempt of House proceedings against him. He was despatched to jail for not showing earlier than the privileges committee of the House.
Anagani Satyaprasad, a pacesetter of the opposition Telugu Desam Party who’s a member of the Andhra Pradesh meeting privileges committee, seen {that a} state election commissioner can’t be summoned earlier than the House as Article 243K of the Constitution empowers him with supreme powers.
Constitutional lawyer Jandhyala Ravishankar mentioned the 2 instances — Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh — weren’t comparable. The Maharashtra committee acted against Nandlal for not showing earlier than the House after repeated notices and never for claiming powers to carry the civic physique polls.
TDP senior chief Somireddy Chandramohan Reddy mentioned the choice of the Maharashtra meeting was subsequently faulted by the Supreme Court. Moreover, the difficulty of privileges doesn’t come up within the case in Andhra as there was nothing unsuitable within the state election commissioner shifting the governor searching for motion against ruling social gathering lawmakers for attacking him, he added.
