TPCC President Revanth Reddy security with 4 gunmen

 SMTV Desk 2018-10-30 15:54:28  telangana, supreme court, revanth reddy, revanth reddy security
TPCC President Revanth Reddy security with 4 gunmen

Hyderabad, Oct 30: The Hyderabad High Court on Monday ordered that Telangana Pradesh Congress Committee working president A. Revanth Reddy should be provided four plus four security guards from the Centre.

Justice A.V. Sesha Sai said the security would be in place till the announcement of Telangana Assembly results. The judge heard extensive arguments by the Election Commission of India, Telangana State and the Union government before directing the Centre and the ECI through the Telangana Chief Electoral Officer to arrange security cover to Mr. Reddy as the latter had pleaded in his petition.

Citing threat from his political opponents, Mr. Reddy sought a direction from the High Court to the ECI and the State Election Commission to provide four gunmen from the Centre or any independent agency for his protection.

The counsel for the petitioner B.V. Mohan Reddy contended that the ECI was duty-bound to provide security to political parties fielding their respective candidates in the ensuing elections.

The candidate should be able to contest without any threat or fear of being spied upon. He maintained that his client apprehended that gunmen provided by Telangana State are likely to spy upon him and watch him movements.

He sought to know why the State police didn’t want Mr. Reddy to secure protection from the Centre. He argued that his client had threat perception and had given the police the numbers of vehicles which followed him.

Even the district superintendent of police gave a message stating that Mr. Reddy faces threat from the Maoists. The ECI s counsel, Avinash Desai, presented to the bench that ECI was not responsible for the security of individuals.

All the processes, initiatives, measures and systems associated with the peaceful conduct of elections would be at the disposal of the Commission and it would have overall superintendence over them, he maintained.

The petitioner s counsel said the ECI cannot say an individual’s security was not related to the election process. It was the ECI, through the CEO, that had permitted Mr. Reddy to campaign across the State and organise meetings.

Even the election code of conduct had come into force and hence naturally the candidate s security lies with the ECI, he argued.