Safiya Malik

The High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh Single Bench of Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao disposed of a writ petition filed by a Member of Parliament seeking safeguards during his appearance before the investigating authorities in connection with an ongoing inquiry. The petitioner sought to be examined in the presence of legal counsel and requested that appropriate measures be taken to ensure transparency during the recording of his statement. The Court directed that the petitioner’s statement be recorded within the coverage area of installed CCTV cameras and permitted the petitioner to be accompanied by legal counsel, subject to specific conditions ensuring physical distance and non-interference in the investigative process.

The writ petition was filed by P.V. Midhun Reddy @ Peddireddi Venkata Midhun Reddy against the State of Andhra Pradesh and others. The petitioner sought a direction to allow his examination in connection with Crime No.21 of 2024 of the CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, Guntur District in the presence of an advocate of his choice, and to ensure the statement was recorded via audio-video electronic means.

Also Read: Writ Under Article 32 Cannot Be Used to Challenge Our Own Judgments’: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Pension Cut-Off, Upholds 2004 Notification

The petitioner contended that the proceedings were politically motivated, claiming he was being targeted due to political vendetta. It was submitted that although he had not been named as an accused, the petitioner feared potential physical abuse or manhandling during the investigation. The counsel for the petitioner argued for the presence of an advocate and insisted on audio-video recording of the statement.

Senior Counsel Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, representing the petitioner, argued that audio-video electronic means for witness examination were permissible under law. He cited multiple precedents to support the petitioner's request:

• Shafhi Mohammad vs. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2018) 5 SCC 311]: The Court recorded, "Videography may be done on 'best effort' basis. The timeline should be different for different States and the Central Investigating Agencies."

• Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh and others [(2021) 1 SCC 184]: The Court observed, "The State and Union Territory Governments should ensure that CCTV cameras are installed in each and every police station... It is imperative to ensure that CCTV cameras are installed at all entry and exit points... CCTV systems must consist of audio as well as video footage... the data... shall be preserved for a period of 18 months."

• An order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in P.(PIL) No.32 of 2019 dated 15.07.2019: The Court stated, "We feel that the request of the Police Department to cover all the prisons and Police stations, in a phased manner, cannot be said to be unjustifiable."

• Another decision of the same High Court in P.No.34842 of 2022, dated 01.11.2022, was also cited in support of ensuring procedural safeguards during investigation.

Conversely, the Advocate General for the State, Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, submitted that as per existing legal provisions, such as the proviso to Section 161(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the audio-video recording of statements was not mandatory. The discretion, he argued, lies solely with the Investigating Officer.

He relied upon the decision of the High Court of Telangana in Y.S. Avinash Reddy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [2023 SCC OnLine TS 4075], where it was recorded, "Discretion is vested with the Investigating Officer to conduct examination of any person... through audio-video recording. However, the person so summoned... can request... and consideration of the said request will be in line with the object of Section 161(3)..."

He also referred to Section 180(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which provides that the police officer may record statements in writing or by audio-video means. The provision states: "Provided that statement made under this sub-section may also be recorded by audio-video electronic means..."

The Advocate General stated that there is no statutory compulsion for audio-video recording in such instances and that such decisions remain discretionary.

Upon hearing both parties, the Court noted the petitioner's status as an elected Member of Parliament and acknowledged his apprehensions. The Court recorded, "As evident from the record, the petitioner has not been arrayed as an accused."

The Court referred to the existing infrastructure within the Office of the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, and noted the submission made by the Advocate General: "CCTV cameras have been duly installed within the Office of the Commissioner of Police... where the statement of the petitioner is intended to be recorded."

While referring to relevant statutory and judicial precedents, the Court observed that although recording statements through electronic means is not mandatory, ensuring transparency and accountability during the investigation is paramount.

The Court stated, "A reading of Section 180(3) of the BNSS as well as the decision reported in Y.S. Avinash Reddy... indicates that the police officer has the discretion to record the statements of witnesses using audio-video electronic means and the accused or witness cannot compel the Police Officers to record his statement by using audio-video electronic means."

In consideration of the arguments advanced and the concerns expressed by the petitioner, the Court issued a set of structured directions to balance the petitioner’s rights with the requirements of investigation.

The Court directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to be accompanied by two advocates while appearing before Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. However, it was clarified that only one advocate may remain present with the petitioner at any given point of time.

The Court further stipulated that the presence of the accompanying advocate shall be subject to the condition that the counsel maintains a minimum distance of 10 feet from the location where the petitioner’s statement is being recorded. Nevertheless, the entire examination must be conducted within the line of sight of the advocate, ensuring that the process remains visible and accessible to the legal representative.

Also Read: Kerala HC: FIR After Vigilance Enquiry Bars Promotion ; Person Under Vigilance Proceedings Can't Be Included in Select List

It was also directed that the advocate accompanying the petitioner shall not interfere in any manner with the process of recording the statement.

To promote transparency and accountability, the Court directed the Investigating Officer to ensure that the statement of the petitioner is recorded strictly within the designated coverage area of CCTV cameras.

Concluding the matter, the Court ordered, “With the above directions, Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Kalla Guna Sekhar (with Senior Counsel T. Niranjan Reddy)

For the Respondents: Dammalapati Srinivas, Advocate General for the State, GP for Home

Case Title: P.V. Midhun Reddy @ Peddireddi Venkata Midhun Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Neutral Citation: APHC010195902025

Case Number: Writ Petition No. 9861 of 2025

Bench: Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao

[Read/Download order]