Despite ECI's rejection, HC allows AP govt to disburse DBT aid on May 14

Amaravati: On Friday, the first bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court, led by Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R Raghunandan Rao, asked the Election Commission of India (ECI) to explain why they have ordered the State government to stop the distribution of financial assistance through Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT).

The HC allowed the state government to disburse funds under various pending direct benefit transfer (DBT) schemes on May 14, without the Election Commission's interference.

“We’re not sure if the Election Commission supports fair play. The commission is susceptible to judicial review and is not immune to High Court orders. Since the Pasupu Kumkuma plan was already in place when the MCC took effect, it is evident that the Election Commission did not adopt the 2019 conduct,” the HC bench said.

Though the High Court, based on petitions filed by beneficiaries had allowed the YSRCP government to disburse these funds on May 10, it could not do so as it ran out of time due to EC’s interference and also further court proceedings today.

On Thursday, the AP High Court dismissed the ECI order and allowed the State government to transfer Rs 14,165.66 crores to beneficiaries of different welfare schemes through DBT. Earlier in the day, the ECI once again served a notice to the Andhra Pradesh Government seeking several clarifications including that of the fiscal position of the State by 3 pm to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to allow the State government to release funds under the DBT.

“After the High Court ordered the release of the DBT, under what authority did you request information from the government? You did not sit on the High Court order’s judgement and submit a writ appeal,” the court said.

The first bench of the high court asked the ECI, “How did you allow Telangana’s Rythu Bandhu scheme and not these schemes?”

Inquiring further, Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur questioned senior counsel Nadkarni, representing the ECI, about his ‘threat’ to move the House Motion petition. Then attorney Nadkarni expressed regret to the judge.

The HC adjourned the case to June giving time to ECI to respond.