People, Please Watch the TDP’s Evil Rule

• TDP behaves as if they will respect only convenient verdicts
• Defying court’s orders is unlawful
• People will teach Babu a lesson - Chevireddy

 Hyderabad: YSRCP MLA Chevireddy Bhaskar Reddy slammed the TDP Government for arrogantly behaving as if their word was superior to the court’s verdict. He questioned why the Government had approached court when it considered their word to be ultimate. The counterclaim should not have been filed in case of lack of respect for the court’s verdict, supposed Chevireddy. He questioned why the Government had gone to division bench. He commented that the TDP Government was behaving as if they would respect a convenient verdict and disrespect an unsuitable judgement.

 Imprisonment is certain

Chevireddy exclaimed that the assembly’s marshal and the assembly’s secretary would have to go to jail for defying court’s orders. He added that they would practically understand the consequence of disobeying the judicial system. In response to TDP MLA Anitha’s comment that this could be discussed in the assembly, Chevireddy questioned if they had to take the microphones home to talk to them when access to microphone was not being given in the assembly.

 We will continue to fight for the people

Chevireddy Bhaskar Reddy proclaimed that fight would be continued against TDP’s defiance to court’s orders, its anti-people rule, its ignorance of the promises made, its indifference to people’s trust and its suspending rule 71 against the rules. He mentioned that any rule would be implemented owing to the constitution but not against it. He explained that they would take to the notice of the people the misdeeds of the Government. He appealed to the state’s people to watch the atrocities being committed by TDP Government.

 Laws are to be obeyed

Chevireddy informed that every legislative assembly in the country had first obeyed court orders and then approached the court regarding their dissatisfaction. He questioned how the law-making people could disobey laws. He confided that they had people’s support and that they would continue to expose the misdeeds of the Government. 

Unparliamentary language of the CM and his ministers

Chevireddy questioned speaker Kodela if it was enjoyable to his ears when the leaders of the ruling party used unparliamentary language in the assembly. He reminded that the CM called an MLA in a vulgar manner and warned he would see his end. A minister remarked about some MLA’s high cholesterol meaning he was arrogant. Someone else called MLAs as pigs in gutter.

Yet another TDP leader called some MLAs as psychos while some other leader cautioned his colleagues that he would slaughter them and bury them in the assembly. He stated that justice should be evenly served to all.

Chevireddy demanded to know why the hundreds of vacant MPTC posts and sarpanch posts were not being filled through elections. He declared that Chandrababu would learn a moral when people slapped him with their votes if elections were held. He mentioned that he did no wrong and if proved otherwise YSRCP was ready to respond.

Only if the assembly sessions happened with respect to constitutional rights and basic principles would Article 212 function, Chevireddy mentioned. He added that the Supreme Court had stated that courts could intervene in cases of violation of constitution or endangered democracy or defiance of basic rights. He stated that court’s verdict was supreme in all the states.

He cited the incident when Lucknow court had delivered its verdict against the assembly’s resolution to arrest an MLA for a week in 1964 in Uttar Pradesh. Then the speaker approached a division bench and that bench too backed the decision of the single bench. Then the ruling party took it to the notice of the President of India and he sent it to the Supreme Court and it too ruled that a speaker had no right to suspend an MLA at his will.

He also mentioned another incident when 6 MLAs were suspended in Tamil Nadu and they approached the High Court. The court voided their suspension and they were allowed to attend the assembly. Chevireddy opined that the Government had the responsibility of implementing court’s orders. He supposed that division bench could be approached in case of dissatisfaction towards the verdict, but only after the orders were implemented.