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.


is certain

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.


will continue to fight for the people

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.


are to be obeyed

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

language of the CM and his ministers

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.


Back to Top