SC Lets Ex-YSRCP MLA Pedda Reddy Seek Security at Own Expense Amid Tadipatri Clash Row
Supreme Court kept in abeyance Andhra Pradesh HC’s order suspending security for ex-YSRCP MLA Kethireddy Pedda Reddy, noting he was willing to bear expenses; division bench appeal to proceed;
The Supreme Court on Friday kept in abeyance an August 20 interim order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s division bench, which had suspended a single-judge ruling directing security arrangements for former YSR Congress Party MLA Kethireddy Pedda Reddy to visit his residence in Tadipatri.
The matter was heard by a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, on a special leave petition argued by Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave.
During the hearing, AoR Aruna Gupta, Advocates Ramesh Allanki and Alabhya Dhamija, also appeared for Reddy.
Pedda, who lost the 2024 assembly elections to senior TDP leader J.C. Prabhakar Reddy, has been unable to return to his hometown amid alleged political clashes following the results.
Dave submitted that Pedda was willing to bear the cost of security but argued that “it does not absolve the State from its duty to protect him,” accusing the ruling party of “rampant abuse of process.”
Justice Nath, however, observed that the High Court’s division bench “rightly stayed” the single-judge’s direction. Justice Mehta intervened to note that since the petitioner was willing to fund his security, the Court could consider relief.
Dave confirmed Pedda’s willingness to cover the expenses.
Accordingly, the Bench ordered: “The petitioner is willing to bear the entire expense of the security that may be provided to him under the orders of the single judge in contempt proceedings. In that view of the matter, the interim order passed by the division bench is kept in abeyance. However, the division bench can decide the appeal.”
The Special Leave Petition (SLP) arises from the order dated August 20, 2025, passed by the High Court at Amaravati. The Division Bench suspended specific directions issued by a Single Judge in contempt proceedings, which had sought to ensure compliance with an earlier writ order.
In April 2025, the petitioner had secured relief in W.P. No. 23241 of 2024, wherein the High Court directed the police to permit his entry into Tadipatri and ensure that no untoward incident occurred. The writ petition was disposed of on April 30, 2025, with this clear mandate.
However, despite repeated intimations through May and June, the police allegedly declined to provide security, citing reasons such as VIP visits, examinations, and other administrative engagements. Frustrated by what he termed wilful disobedience, the petitioner approached the High Court in Contempt Case.
On August 14, 2025, the Single Judge, taking note of the respondents’ “callous” and “uncertain” responses, passed a detailed order to enforce compliance. The court fixed a date and time (August 18, 2025) for the petitioner’s entry, while imposing reasonable restrictions on his convoy and number of visitors.
The State authorities challenged this order contending that the Single Judge had exceeded contempt jurisdiction by issuing substantive directions. The Division Bench accepted this argument on a prima facie basis and stayed the order.
In the SLP, the former legislator argues that the Division Bench gravely erred in entertaining a legally non-maintainable Letters Patent Appeal, contrary to Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and settled principles laid down in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda, 2006 and Ajay Kumar Bhalla v. Prakash Kumar Dixit 2024.
According to the petitioner, the Single Judge’s order did not impose punishment or decide substantive rights but merely issued consequential directions to enforce an existing writ. He contends that staying these directions misconstrues contempt jurisdiction under Article 215, which includes the court’s power to rectify violations of its orders, as recognised in DDA v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd.,1996 and Mazdoor Sangh v. Bara Jute Factory, 2017.
The petitioner asserts that the impugned order:
1. Has rendered the writ order dated April 30, 2025, ineffective and unenforceable.
2. Perpetuates continuous violation of his fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(d), 19(1)(e) and 21 of the Constitution.
3. Enables state officers accused of contempt to shield their defiance through appellate litigation.
4. Condones wilful disobedience and leaves him displaced from his own home and constituency since June 2024.
Calling the appeal a “manifest abuse of process”, the SLP claims that the State never challenged the original writ but selectively targeted only the consequential contempt directions, exposing their intent to frustrate judicial orders.