A Rs 200 grant pits Andhra’s two biggest dailies against each other in courts

Eenadu, which is owned by C Ramoji Rao-headed Ushodaya Publications, believes that the order is meant to benefit Sakshi, run by Jagati Publications, founded by Chief Minister Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy. While the government order does not mention Sakshi, it says the publication selected should be “a widely circulated daily Telugu newspaper”.

The sachivalayams had been set up by the YSRCP government led by Jagan Mohan with the purpose of ensuring that welfare schemes reach the doorsteps of beneficiaries, and for good governance.

The government order said the allowance was sanctioned after sachivalayam volunteers sought a regional newspaper to get access to information on government schemes.

Incidentally while sachivalayam staff are government employees, the volunteers are political appointees owing allegiance to local elected representatives. Sources said since the government order was issued, volunteers had received calls from Sakshi’s marketing executives asking them to utilise the allowance for their newspaper.

Dr B Anjan Reddy, President of the Ward and Village Employees’ and Volunteers’ Association, insists they have not received any specific instructions to subscribe to Sakshi. “It is neither mentioned in the GO nor have we received any communication regarding it.”

However, Eenadu points out that the government allowance fully covers Sakshi’s monthly subscription, which is Rs 176.50. Eenadu’s monthly subscription, on the other hand, is Rs 207.50, it says, while that of a third biggest Telugu daily, Andhra Jyoti, is Rs 207.

Eenadu has also linked cases against the Margadarsi Chit Fund Private Ltd, also owned by Ushodaya Publications, to its ongoing conflict with the Andhra government.

A bitter critic of the state government, Eenadu is often accused by CM Jagan Mohan of favouring the Telugu Desam Party and its chief Chandrababu Naidu.

Eenadu first moved the Andhra Pradesh High Court in February, seeking suspension of the government order, calling it violation of the fundamental right to equality and freedom of speech and expression, and alleging that the allowance amount was fixed in such a manner as to deliberately keep Eenadu out, and to increase Sakshi’s circulation.

However, the court ruled that there was no evidence indicating the government had directed the volunteers to subscribe to Sakshi. Eenadu then went to the Supreme Court, and on March 29, it issued notices to the state government.

Eenadu urged the Court that the matter be listed before any single judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh HC. Senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan, representing the state government, demanded that it be heard by a division bench. The Supreme Court frowned upon the exchange, calling it a “sorry spectacle”.

On Monday, the Supreme Court transferred the matter to the Delhi HC for final disposal. A Bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala said: “Without going into the merits and rival contentions of the parties, we are of the considered view that in the interest of justice, it will be appropriate if the matter is transferred to the Delhi High Court.”

When one of the advocates argued that transferring the case to the Delhi HC might be a reflection on the Andhra HC, the Bench observed: “What weighed upon us is that this is not a dispute between two newspapers. This is between two political parties.”

Before the Supreme Court transferred the matter, Vaidyanathan said the state government was willing to increase the allowance of Rs 200 per month to Rs 210, and that this would cover almost all newspapers.

Asked about the Eenadu vs Sakshi case, Andhra Pradesh Public Relations Minister C S V Krishna said the matter is in courts.

The Legal Department of the Eenadu Group said their Supreme Court lawyer had already stated their position.

Even as this case is ongoing in courts, the Eenadu Group is facing action by the Andhra Pradesh CID over Margadarsi Chit Fund Private Ltd owned by iy, for allegedly violating the state’s chit fund Act. On March 28, a day before the last hearing in the Supreme Court, the CID issued a notice to Eenadu Group Chairman C Ramoji Rao and his daughter-in-law (the Managing Director of Margadarsi) to appear before it in the case.

The CID had conducted raids on Margadarsi branches across Andhra and arrested four people on March 12. On March 14, Margadarsi filed a petition in the Telangana HC seeking that the Andhra CID be directed not to take any coercive steps against its officials, especially Ramoji Rao and Sailaja, who reside in Hyderabad.

The CID claims it took up the investigation after receiving complaints of irregularities.

On Monday, Margadarsi issued a statement saying the Andhra government was making baseless allegations against it. “In spite of it, not one subscriber has raised any query or doubt,” said the statement.