The Andhra Pradesh High Court heard Public interest litigation (PIL) that was filed against appointing Nilam Sawhney as the Andhra Pradesh’s State Election Commissioner(SEC), who earlier served as the Chief Secretary.
During the hearing, the single justice bench comprising Justice Bhattu Devanand made key comments on the government advisors and asked how come they can address political speeches.
The state High Court issued directives to the government to file an affidavit comprising all the details on the appointments of the government advisors and what they should speak and should not speak?
Senior advocate CV Mohan Reddy appeared for the hearing on the behalf of the Principal Secretary. During the arguments, the bench asked him, did he notice government advisors giving political speeches and addressing such meetings during his tenure as the advocate-General of the State. To this, the senior advocate replied ‘No’.
Finding fault with government advisors addressing the political meetings, the High Court asked whether the government is encouraging such meetings. Adjourning the next hearing to the 19th of this month.
Why are the government advisors conducting reviews and addressing political speeches when these departments have concerned Ministers. Are there no guidelines for the government advisors, the court asked?
The issue reached the Andhra Pradesh High Court after one Regu Umamaheswara Rao, an advocate by profession moved the court with a quo-warranto petition challenging the appointment of Nilam Sawhney as the SEC, who earlier served as the government advisor.
Nilam Sawhney retired from her post of Chief Secretary to the state government on the 31st of December last year. Before the completion of her tenure, she was appointed as the Chief Advisor to the government. Her name was recommended by the government for the SEC post, while she was holding the post of chief advisor.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court became critical of a few advisors to the government addressing issues pertaining to politics during their interaction with the media, which goes against the guidelines. The Court reacted sharply to this.
We have to wait and see what the government says in its counter-affidavit, which will be submitted before the court soon.
