JUDGMENT : ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, J. 1. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 07.02.2021 passed by a learned single Judge in I.A. No. 2 of 2021 in W.P. No. 3009 of 2021. 2. Heard Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. V.R.N. Prashanth, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner and Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar, learned standing counsel for respondent No. 1 (State Election Commission) and Mr. S. Sriram, learned Advocate General, for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 3. Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel, submits that he may be permitted to strike off the name of respondent No. 2, who is the State Election Commissioner, from the array of parties in this appeal and he will also take appropriate steps before the learned single Judge for striking off the name of respondent No. 2 from the array of parties in the writ petition. He submits that in view of the prayer made for striking off the name of respondent No. 2, the appellant-writ petitioner will not press the allegations made against him in the writ petition. 4. Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel, as well as Mr. S. Sriram, learned Advocate General, do not have any objection in permitting the appellant to strike off the name of respondent No. 2 from the array of parties. 5. Having regard to the submissions made above, we are of the considered opinion that the name of respondent No. 2 be struck off from the array of parties in this appeal. Registry will take appropriate steps accordingly. 6. The writ petition was filed by the Minster for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development and Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, challenging the order dated 06.02.2021 passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in proceedings No. 287/SEC-B2/2021 and consequential letter bearing D.O.Lr. No. 513/SEC-B2 dated 06.02.2021 addressed to the fourth respondent, i.e. the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh. 7. The order dated 06.02.2021 came to be passed in the wake of a press conference held by the appellant-writ petitioner on 05.02.2021 at Tirupati. 8. 1 and 2 in proceedings No. 287/SEC-B2/2021 and consequential letter bearing D.O.Lr. No. 513/SEC-B2 dated 06.02.2021 addressed to the fourth respondent, i.e. the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh. 7. The order dated 06.02.2021 came to be passed in the wake of a press conference held by the appellant-writ petitioner on 05.02.2021 at Tirupati. 8. Presently, the Ordinary Elections to the Panchayats in the State of Andhra Pradesh are being held in four phases and the aforesaid order dated 06.02.2021 was issued by the State Election Commission, as indicated therein, by invoking its power under Article 243K of the Constitution of India, in order to ensure free and fair election. The consequential order dated 06.02.2021 is a letter issued to the Director General of Police, communicating that the appellant can under no circumstances be included in the welcoming line-up when the Hon’ble President of India visits Madanapalli of Chittoor District on 07.02.2021. 9. In the order dated 06.02.2021, the statements alleged to have been made by the appellant-writ petitioner in the press conference held on 05.02.2021 are noted as follows: “The Collectors and Returning Officers in the State are warned not to obey the instructions of the madcap Election Commissioner. If they follow the Commission’s instructions (preventing forced unanimous elections), action will be taken against them and they will be blacklisted. This Commissioner will be there till March, 2021 end but our Government will continue beyond and we will take you to task. The Returning Officers are to disregard the Commissioner’s directions and declare all unanimous elections. The Commissioner is doing these things to gain MP/MLC seat from Telugu Desam Party. The people of the State are behind us. Unanimous elections shall continue.” 10. At Paragraph 7 of the order, it was observed as follows: “The Commission has deliberated concerns both on the issues of law as well as issues of facts and there is found to be unmistakable and deliberate breach, and an attempt to encourage violation of rule of law. The Commission has come to a conclusion that unless corrective steps are taken immediately to remedy the situation arising as a consequence out of the utterances of Hon’ble Minister for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, the election process and the holding of free and fair elections will be in peril and in danger of being vitiated.” 11. The Commission has come to a conclusion that unless corrective steps are taken immediately to remedy the situation arising as a consequence out of the utterances of Hon’ble Minister for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, the election process and the holding of free and fair elections will be in peril and in danger of being vitiated.” 11. On the aforesaid background, at Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said order, it was recorded as follows: “11. Having carefully looked at the various alternatives and avenues of remedial action, the Commission by invoking its plenary powers under Article 243K of the Constitution, directs the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh to confine Hon’ble Minister for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development to his residential premises till the completion of elections to the Gram Panchayats, which will conclude by 21.02.2021. 12. During this period, he will not have access to media with a view to prevent making possible inciteful utterances that will have an adverse impact on the ongoing elections to the local bodies as well as on general law and order situation in the district of Chittoor and elsewhere.” 12. In the aforesaid order, it was also observed that the measures indicated in the order would not prevent the writ petitioner from accessing medical aid and such other exigencies warranting inevitable movement as deemed reasonable and that during such occasions, while allowed to travel, he would not have access to media or to his supporters and followers. It was further observed that the said order would not prevent the writ petitioner from disposing of official papers in any manner and would not incapacitate him in discharging his legitimate responsibilities as a Minister. 13. The learned single Judge, by the order under challenge, had held that, prima facie, the State Election Commission does not have the power to direct confinement of the writ petitioner to his residential premises till 21.02.2021 and, accordingly, the order dated 06.02.2021, so far as it relates to imposition of such restraint, was set aside. However, the learned single Judge refused to interfere with the restraint imposed on the writ petitioner to have access to media. It is against the refusal of that relief, the present writ appeal is preferred. 14. However, the learned single Judge refused to interfere with the restraint imposed on the writ petitioner to have access to media. It is against the refusal of that relief, the present writ appeal is preferred. 14. Though the learned single Judge had observed in the order that the order dated 06.02.201 is set aside to the extent indicated, it is to be noted that the writ petition is still pending and, therefore, it has to be understood that the learned single Judge, in essence, has suspended that part of the order which is stated to have been set aside. 15. Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner, has submitted that the Government had taken a policy decision to encourage unanimous elections and as a Minister for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, it is the responsibility of the appellant-writ petitioner to propagate and canvass the policy of the Government and in many places, accordingly, unanimous elections have taken place. Drawing attention of the Court to Rule 16 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Elections of Members and Sarpanch of Gram Panchayats, Members of Mandal Praja Parishads and Members of Zilla Praja Parishads) Rules, 2006 (for short ‘the Rules’) he has contended that the Returning Officer is enjoined to forthwith declare a candidate duly elected in Form-X if there is only one validly nominated candidate. However, in gross violation of the said Rule, the State Election Commissioner, by order dated 05.02.2021, had directed the Collectors of Chittoor and Guntur Districts, who are the Returning Officers, not to go ahead with the declaration of unanimous results and had asked them to put the results on hold till the Commission gives its clearance. Learned senior counsel has submitted that in the backdrop of the aforesaid events, the appellant-writ petitioner had made certain statements directing the officials to discharge their duties as per Rules and that the statements attributed to him by the State Election Commission has to be understood in the context in which the said statements were made. He has also relied upon the decision of this Court in D. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy vs. Election Officer Stage-II, Giddalur Gram Panchayat, 2001 (5) ALT 579 , on the issue of declaration of results in case of unanimous elections. He has also relied upon the decision of this Court in D. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy vs. Election Officer Stage-II, Giddalur Gram Panchayat, 2001 (5) ALT 579 , on the issue of declaration of results in case of unanimous elections. Learned senior counsel further submits that the appellant-writ petitioner undertakes not to make any inciteful utterances that will have an adverse impact on the ongoing elections to the local bodies as well as on general law and order situation and will not make any personal attack on the functioning of the State Election Commissioner. He submits that because of the position that the appellant-writ petitioner holds in the Government, denial of access to media will be violative of freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the same would impede his functioning as a Minister of the Government. Accordingly, he submits that the appellant-writ petitioner may be permitted to have access to media. 16. Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, has submitted that though the appellant-writ petitioner is a Minister for the Department of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, conduct of elections to the Panchayats would be under the superintendence, direction and control of the State Election Commission and the Minister has nothing to do with such conduct of elections. The utterances made by the appellant-writ petitioner and the threat of dire consequences issued to the Returning Officers had created fear psychosis amongst the officers discharging election duties and the same is not conducive for the conduct of free and fair elections. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that the trend of unanimous elections is comparatively on a higher scale in the Districts of Chittoor and Guntur and therefore, in respect of only those two Districts, directions have been issued to the Returning Officers not to declare result forthwith in case of unanimous elections, so as to enable the Commission to examine as to whether such unanimous elections have taken place due to threat and coercion. He has also submitted that it must be conceded that such power is available with the State Election Commission to ensure that free and fair elections are held in letter and spirit. He has also submitted that it must be conceded that such power is available with the State Election Commission to ensure that free and fair elections are held in letter and spirit. It is further contended that if such direction was not in accordance with law, the same could have been put to challenge in appropriate proceedings before appropriate Court of law but, instead of taking such a recourse, the appellant-writ petitioner issued threats to the officers working under the State Election Commission, which cannot be condoned and it is also with a view to prevent such incidents in future, steps as contained in the order dated 06.02.2021 had been taken. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that having regard to the contents of press clippings, the restriction imposed upon the writ petitioner-appellant regarding access to media is reasonable and justified. 17. Mr. S. Sriram, learned Advocate General, has submitted that it is essentially a matter between the appellant-writ petitioner and respondent No. 1-State Election Commission. 18. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 19. Though, Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel for the appellant, had laid much stress on Rule 16 of the Rules to contend that the directions contained in the letter dated 05.02.2021 by the Election Commissioner were contrary to law, we refrain from examining that aspect of the matter as the issue has not really fallen for consideration in the instant proceedings. 20. In the writ petition, at Paragraph 8, the writ petitioner had stated that his statements had been distorted by the second respondent. However, the writ petitioner had not elaborated as to how the same were distorted. 21. As the writ petition is pending, we are of the considered opinion that it will not be just and proper for us to record any conclusive determination on the issue relating to restraint imposed upon the appellant-writ petitioner to have access to media, as contained in the order dated 06.02.2021. 22. A perusal of Paragraph 12 of the order dated 06.02.2021 goes to show that the writ petitioner was prevented to have access to media for making possible inciteful utterances that would have adverse impact on the ongoing elections to the local bodies as well as on general law and order situation. 23. Mr. 22. A perusal of Paragraph 12 of the order dated 06.02.2021 goes to show that the writ petitioner was prevented to have access to media for making possible inciteful utterances that would have adverse impact on the ongoing elections to the local bodies as well as on general law and order situation. 23. Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel, had given an undertaking that the appellant-writ petitioner would not be making any inciteful utterances. What are inciteful statements is again a matter of debate. But, what cannot be lost sight of the fact is that only because of the possibility of there being inciteful utterances, complete prohibition was imposed on the appellant-writ petitioner from accessing media by the State Election Commission. 24. Considering the matter in its entirety, we are, prima facie, of the view that denying access to media completely would not be justified. However, at the same time, the purity and sanctity of elections have also to be maintained. 25. In that view of the matter, balancing the competing equities, while allowing the appellant-writ petitioner to generally have access to media, we also direct that he will not have access to media for issues in connection with the ongoing election process till the scheduled elections are concluded. He will also not make any personal attack against the State Election Commissioner, in terms of the undertaking given by Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel. However, if the appellant-writ petitioner is aggrieved by any action taken by the State Election Commissioner, it is needless to say, he may seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law. 26. With the above observations and directions, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.