High Court Rejects Former Minister Balineni’s Plea to Halt Mock Polling; Orders CEC to Submit Details

High Court Rejects Former Minister Balineni’s Plea to Halt Mock Polling; Orders CEC to Submit Details,Andhra Pradesh,Balineni Srinivasa Reddy,Central Election Commission,Election Dispute,EVM,High Court, Interim Order,Legal Challenge,Mock Polling,Supreme Court,VVPAT,Balineni Srinivasa Reddy News,High Court Rejects Former Minister Balineni’s Plea,Balineni May Move SC On EVM Issue,AP High Court Dismisses Plea To Halt Mock Polling,EC To Reverification Evms In 12 Booths Of Ongole Constituency,Balineni Srinivasa Reddy Complaint,EVM Verification Process In Ongole,Balineni Srinivasa Reddy Latest News,Balineni Srinivasa Reddy Latest Updates,Balineni Srinivasa Reddy Pressmeet,Mango News,AP,AP News,Andhra Pradesh,AP Latest News,AP Politics,AP Political News

Vijayawada: The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a plea by former minister Balineni Srinivasa Reddy seeking to halt mock polling in the state. The court rejected his request for an interim stay on the mock polling scheduled for Monday. Balineni’s petition challenged the Central Election Commission’s (CEC) directive to conduct mock polling instead of the standard procedure of checking and inspecting Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trails (VVPATs).

Justice Nimmagadda Venkateshwarlu, presiding over the case, instructed the CEC to provide detailed information regarding its decision to refuse the issuance of an interim order. The court adjourned the hearing to Tuesday for further proceedings.

During the hearing, Balineni’s advocate, Vivekananda, argued that the petitioner, who contested and lost the recent elections, had complied with the Election Commission’s requirements, including the payment of the necessary fees. The lawyer contended that the CEC’s directive to conduct mock polling contradicted a Supreme Court judgment, which allows the inspection and examination of EVMs and VVPATs in cases where there are objections regarding vote counting.

The advocate further argued that the CEC made its decision without consulting political parties, as required. The court, however, questioned whether the petitioner could challenge the CEC’s orders if they were in contradiction to a Supreme Court ruling. The judge suggested that the petitioner might need to approach the Supreme Court directly for relief.

The hearing will continue on Tuesday, after the CEC submits the requested details.