Riots, arrest of Raghurama Raju, no sudden reaction: the government of Andhra reports this to the Supreme Court

The YSRCP leader, a vocal critic of his own party and government, has argued that hate speech charges were brought against him in order to silence him

The registration of a riot and the arrest of Narasapuram MP and YSRC leader K. Raghurama Krishnam Raju was not a “knee-jerk reaction,” the Andhra government told the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

Mr. Raju has consistently and deliberately abused his reach and authority as a public figure to create caste and community dissatisfaction in the state. His words and actions actually sparked violence. His intention was to arouse popular discontent against the state government.

The state cannot be expected to wait with folded hands until an actual complaint has been filed against Mr Raju, who was brought before the Supreme Court by the Jaganmohan Reddy government.

The state’s response to Mr. Raju’s appeal to the Apex Court on bail in the sedition case came in a 119-page affidavit. The affidavit was filed late Wednesday.

Mr. Raju, a vocal critic of his own party and government, has argued that the sedition charges were brought against him in order to silence him. The MP, represented by lawyer Tatini Basu, appealed to the Apex Court to protect his fundamental right to freedom of expression.

“The petitioner (Raju) has consistently and deliberately tried to create and arouse dissatisfaction with the state government by creating a wedge between different classes and citizens,” said the state represented by lawyer Mahfooz A. Nazki.

“The state was only forced to take appropriate action when it found that the petitioner’s (Raju) words and actions were manifesting themselves in actual violence throughout the state of Andhra Pradesh, creating disharmony within different classes of citizens … His statements were rife on social media and had dire consequences on the ground and people resorted to violence against each other, “said the Andhra government.

The state said mere viewing of numerous videos that are widely shared on social media would make it clear that its statements were “made in support of a deliberate draft and conspiracy developed by several people, including the petitioner,” to create unrest in the state by dividing people. ” based on caste and religion “.

Although every citizen, let alone a member of parliament, has an inalienable right to criticize the government, “such a right cannot extend to creating a situation in which public order is disturbed”.

Eventually, the state relied on bail from other leaders and activists such as Hardik Patel, Akhil Gogoi, Gautam Navlakha and Sudha Bhardwaj to argue that the Apex Court never intervened in such cases until the lower courts had an opportunity to first try them to examine the matter.

“The High Court has referred the petitioner to the court. Nothing prevents the petitioner from applying to the court in the exercise of his legal rights (on bail),” said the state government.

Leave a Comment