Back
2026 Supreme(AP) 847
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J.
Kethireddy Pedda Reddy, S/o. Late K. Rami Reddy – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of AP, Rep. By The Principal Secretary To Government, Department For Home Affairs And Disaster Management – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 31137 of 2025
Decided On : 07-05-2026
For the Petitioner: Patil Yugandhar Reddy
For the Respondent: GP For Home
The right to movement and political participation under Article 19 of the Constitution is subject to reasonable restrictions to maintain public order, requiring a balance between individual fundamental rights and the State's duty to ensure public peace.
Headnote:The petitioner, a former legislator, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, alleging that the police authorities, acting under the influence of political rivals, restricted his movement and political activities in the Tadipatri Constituency, thereby violating Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The court noted the existence of intense political rivalry and previous judicial directions regarding the petitioner's conduct and security. The primary issue was whether the restrictions imposed on the petitioner's movement and political participation were lawful. The court reasoned that while the right to movement and political activity are constitutionally protected under Article 19, they are subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order. The court emphasized the need to balance the individual's fundamental rights with the State's obligation to maintain public peace in a sensitive area. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claims of restricted movement and political exclusion violating fundamental rights. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. allegations of non-compliance with court-imposed conditions and public order concerns. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. constitutional protection of movement and expression subject to reasonable restrictions. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. balanced directions for movement and public order maintenance. (Para 12 , 13) |
ORDER :
VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J.
1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for:
“.... a Writ of Mandamus declaring actions of the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in not allowing the petitioner to move in Tadipatri Town as well as to move in the entire Tadipatri Constituency at Ananthapur Dist., Andhra Pradesh is violative of article 14,19,21 of Constitution of India as illegal, arbitrary, capricious and unwarranted and consequently direct the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to allow the Petitioner to move and conduct his political activity freely in Tadipatri Town and Constituency, Ananthapuramu District, Andhra Pradesh and also allow permit him to meet general public and their party workers.”
2. Heard Sri Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Patil Yugandhar Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.A.Jayanthi, learned Government Pleader for Home.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is a former MLA from Tadipatri Constituency (2019–2024), elected on behalf of YSR Congress Party after defeating the Telugu Desam Party candidate, Mr. J.C. Ashmit Reddy. He further submits that in the 2024 elections, the Petitioner again contested from the same constituency but was defeated by the said opponent. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that, J.C. family, particularly Mr. J.C. Prabhakar Reddy and his brother, have exercised long-standing political dominance in Tadipatri, and that after the 2024 elections, they have allegedly exercised undue influence over law and order, resulting in the Petitioner being effectively excluded from the constituency. It is contended that, after 2024 election results, the Petitioner was prevented from entering and freely moving within Tadipatri constituency without any lawful order of externment, and that such restriction has been enforced through police action allegedly at the instance of private individuals.
4. Learned Senior Counsel argues that, on the day and the next day of election, cases and counter-cases were registered against the Petitioner and J.C. Prabhkar Reddy and on that connection, after initial court-imposed bail conditions restricting entry for a limited period, the Petitioner attempted to return to Tadipatri, but was met with hostility and was forcibly prevented from accessing his residence and constituency, in violation of his fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(d) and 19(1)(e) of the Constitution.
5. It is contended that, in view of the acceleration of atrocities with the cooperation and abetment of the Police against the Petitioner, the Petitioner filed W.P.No.23241 of 2024, wherein, this Court directed the Police to allow the Petitioner to go to Tadipatri. As the Police chose to defy the said order, Contempt Case No.1472 of 2025 was filed by the Petitioner and that this Court was pleased to pass an order dated 14.08.2025 directing the Police to give protection and to allow the Petitioner to stay in his house at Tadipatri. It is submitted that the said order was stayed for the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.2 of 2025 on 20.08.2025 and the said order was stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.24299 of 2025 on 29.08.2025. The Respondents though allowed him to stay at his house, not allowed him to attend even marriage functions and to conduct his political party programs.
6. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the opposing political leadership has issued public threats of violence against him, including threats of physical
