Judiciary Concerned Over Social Media Speculations On Bail Plea

Legal circles said posts by bloggers and social media users attempted to predict the outcome of the bail application concerning Sai Bhageerath, son of a Union minister, even before the matter reached the vacation bench.

According to sources, some members of the judiciary viewed such commentary with concern, particularly where posts attributed motives to judges or referred to their alleged proximity to influential individuals, including references to caste and regional backgrounds.

The concern arises in connection with a case registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. Legal observers said such speculation could create public perception about judicial outcomes and affect confidence in the impartiality of the process.

They cautioned that attributing intent to judges and circulating unverified claims may undermine the credibility of the justice delivery system.

The issue has prompted calls within legal circles to avoid commentary that could be seen as interfering with judicial proceedings or influencing public opinion on sub judice matters.

HC restrains soil removal from lake to make bricks

The Telangana High Court has restrained private individuals from removing soil from Peddacheruvu tank in Nalgonda district for commercial purposes.

Justice B. Vijay Sen Reddy passed the interim direction while hearing a writ petition filed by Natwa Giridhar, a resident of Chintapalli mandal. The petition challenged permissions granted for excavation and transportation of 10,000 metric tonnes of soil from the tank located in Survey No. 508.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that land, including that of the petitioner, had been acquired for the Chintapalli Reservoir under the Dindi project and that tank soil was meant for related works.

It was alleged that authorities had permitted private individuals — Nakkala Vijayender Reddy and Erra Koteswara Rao — to remove soil for brick manufacturing, in violation of Mines Department regulations and government orders issued in 2015.

The petitioner also stated that villagers had submitted representations opposing the excavation, but no action was taken.

The court directed the respondents to file detailed counters explaining the permissions and posted the matter for July 1.

Pending further orders, the court restrained any private removal of soil from the tank.

HC upholds interim restraint on OM India Trust assets

The Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ appeal filed by Operation Mobilisation (OM) India Trust, holding that it was not maintainable as it arose from criminal proceedings.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin ruled that matters stemming from criminal jurisdiction are not amenable to intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

The appeal challenged an interim order dated April 8, 2026, passed by a single judge in a writ petition filed by Gowripaga Albert. The petitioner had sought a direction to the ministry of home affairs to entrust the probe to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into alleged violations of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act by the OM India Group of Charities and its office-bearers.

The writ petition also sought interim relief restraining the organisation from creating third-party rights or disposing of its movable and immovable properties pending investigation. The single judge had issued notice and directed that the properties not be alienated.

Counsel for OM India Trust argued that the interim order was inconsistent with earlier directions of the Supreme Court in proceedings linked to FIR No. 22 of 2016, registered under Sections 409, 420 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 37 of the FCRA. It was submitted that the apex court had stayed attachment of certain bank accounts but had not restricted disposal of immovable assets.

The Division Bench, however, held that the writ petition was intrinsically linked to a criminal investigation arising from the same FIR and therefore fell within criminal jurisdiction. The court dismissed the writ appeal on the ground of maintainability, leaving the interim order in force.