Ramachandra Rao granted interim relief on red corner notice by High Court

Hyderabad: Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao of the AP High Court granted an interim relief on a petition by Congress Rajya Sabha member Mr K.V.P. Ramachandra Rao apprehending his arrest by the CID on the grounds of the red corner notice.

Senior counsel S. Satyanarayana Prasad, arguing for Mr Rao, contended that the Interpol notice was against the provisions of the Extradition Act and that his client was apprehending arrest following reports in the media.

If the police arrests Mr Rao, it would amount to infringement of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Section 14 and 21 of the Constitution, Mr Prasad said.
Before an Indian citizen is arrested, the Central government and the local courts have to be satisfied that the safeguards guaranteed to the citizen under local laws have been complied with, he added.

Asking the petitioner how the court could act on his apprehensions based on media reports, the judge asked the stance of the CID on the matter. Mr K. Janakiram Reddy, counsel for the CID, said that the department had received the red corner notice from the Central Bureau of Investigation on April 25. But it did not contain the provisional arrest warrant and the necessary documents.

He said that the DG, CID, had written to the CBI director seeking his clarification on the matter. Till they receive the clarification and provisional arrest warrant, the CID will not take any further action.
Citing Sections 34 and 34 (B) of the Extradition Act, the judge said that the relevant provisions mandate that a red corner notice has to be accompanied by a provisional arrest warrant and all the documents pertaining to the case.

The judge said that the Supreme Court in earlier judgements had declared that the red corner notice and the proposed action must be within the parameters of the Indian Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Code.

Maintaining that the issue needs a closer and comprehensive look, especially in the light of the judgement of the Supreme Court, the judge impleaded the Union of India, and the CBI as respondents and issued notices directing them to file counter affidavits. The case was adjourned till after the summer vacation.