YSRCP Member of Parliament (MP) from Andhra Pradesh, V Vijayasai Reddy, sought a police probe into alleged forging and fabrication of documents by the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) in Amaravati on Wednesday.
Vijayasai Reddy, a member of Rajya Sabha, wrote to Andhra Pradesh Director General of Police Gautam Sawang demanding a probe by the Central Forensic Laboratory (CFL) into the difference in signatures of State Election Commissioner N Ramesh Kumar on two documents.
He enclosed copies of the notification issued by the State Election Commissioner on March 15 and his letter to the Union Home Secretary three days later. He sent the letter five days after the state government removed Ramesh Kumar over postponement of local body elections in the state.
The MP alleged the documents were forged and fabricated at the TDP office in Mangalagiri, in collusion with and knowledge of Ramesh Kumar, at the instance of TDP leadership, to make the YSRCP government 'unpopular'.
The YSRCP leader claimed that the letter to the Union Home Secretary was drafted by TDP MP K Ravindra Kumar at the instance of TDP leaders Varla Ramaiah and TD Janardhan. He also urged the police chief to locate the IP address from which the letter was mailed on March 18.
Seeking immediate action, he said it would have a bearing on the adjudication by the courts hearing petitions against Ramesh Kumar's actions.
Ramesh Kumar, in his letter to the Union Home Ministry, had sought protection and made sweeping allegations against the YSRCP government. The letter was sent three days after Chief Minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy slammed Ramesh Kumar for postponing the polls at the TDP's instance.
While the Centre acknowledged that it had received the letter, Ramesh Kumar later denied sending it, triggering a row in the state.
Last week, Governor Biswabhusan Harichandan issued an ordinance, amending the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, which brought down the term of the SEC from five years to three years, thus abruptly shunting Ramesh Kumar out.
Ramesh Kumar has moved the High Court on the matter, arguing that the decision was 'arbitrary' and 'unconstitutional'.
Read: