CID approached the High Court requesting for additional conditions to be imposed on Chandrababu Naidu who was out on an interim bail. The conditions include two DSPs to continuously monitor him and ensure that he does not address the media or have rallies or meetings.
The CID informed the court that Chandrababu violated the Bail conditions by speaking to the media at the Rajahmundry Central Jail and conducting a rally from Rajahmundry to Undavalli for about thirteen hours.
The court turned down the two DSPs monitoring and asked Chandrababu not to talk about the case and not conduct political rallies and meetings.
Eenadu and Sakshi reported the court judgment in their own way. The reporting underlines how Sakshi twists things to suit the political agenda of YSR Congress.
What happened in the court:
There are three important points to be observed to decide the outcome.
1. Regarding this matter, the investigation agency is expected to clarify as to how is it concerned with the respondent/petitioner’s political activities. Furthermore, it should explain how the imposition of conditions related to political activities would contribute to the investigative process. This Court attaches significant weight to the respondent’s argument that any additional conditions should be exclusively geared towards serving the interest of the investigation (point 19 in the judgment).
2. It is evident that the respondent holds the position of National President of the Telugu Desam Party (TDP). Restricting the respondent from appearing before print,
electronic media, or any social media platform to make statements or express opinions during his interim bail period affects his fundamental right to freedom of speech. Simply because interim bail was granted on health grounds, it does not automatically imply that he is not entitled to continue his usual activities, which include expressing his views as he did prior to his arrest. As the President of a political party, the respondent has an inherent responsibility to express his opinion on various issues within the State, particularly with regard to State policies. He should not be subjected to restrictions in his political activities. If such restrictions are imposed, it could significantly impact the electoral prospects of the respondent’s political party (point 20 in the judgment).
3. The Learned Additional Advocate General contends that the respondent/petitioner deviated from the conditions imposed by this Court and participated in a political rally while giving political speeches. In support of this argument, the petitioner submitted a memo on 01.11.2023 along with transcripts of the respondent’s speech delivered shortly after his release from prison and the activities he engaged in following his release on a pen drive. However, the evidence presented does not indicate that the respondent organized the political rally or conducted a public meeting. It demonstrates that several people gathered to greet him after his release, and he expressed gratitude to them. It is essential to recognize that the respondent may not be in a position to prevent people from coming to see him, and it is natural for him to respond when people greet him. This Court cannot issue directives to prevent people from visiting the respondent. The presence of people who came to see him should not be viewed as detrimental to the ongoing investigation in this case. At most, the State may have the capacity to manage the crowd, but it cannot be expected that the respondent should do so as well. Upon careful examination of the presented material, this Court finds no evidence to suggest that the respondent violated the Court’s order. It is important to note that during the interim bail application, the respondent did not request permission to conduct rallies and public meetings. If the respondent had requested in I.A.No.1 of 2023 & I.A.No.3 of 2023 this Court’s permission to hold such events in addition to seeking medical treatment, it raises the question of whether this Court would have granted interim bail under those circumstances (point 21 in the judgment).
Sakshi ignored the entire three paras in the concluding remarks in the judgment that goes entirely in Chandrababu’s favor and reported the statement that interim bail consideration would have been different if the bail was sought for political rallies. This particular statement was presented out of context by Sakshi and was also highlighted for no reason so as to give an impression that the judgment went against Chandrababu which is not true.
Eenadu, on the other hand, reported everything in the judgment as is like how a media house should report.
For those who want to know the conditions of Chandrababu’s bail, he should abstain from making any public comments related to this case and from organizing or participating in public rallies and meetings. There is no bar on talking to media on issues that are not related to the case.
