Telangana HC Admits PIL On Conserving Qutb Shahi Tombs

 Hyderabad: A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court ordered notice to the state government, the Aga Khan Trust for Culture (AKTC), and other authorities, regarding the conservation of the Qutb Shahi Tombs, a Unesco-recognised heritage site in Hyderabad. The panel comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara was dealing with a public interest litigation initiated based on a letter addressed to the court, which alleges that AKTC, despite having been allocated Rs 100 crore for the conservation of the tombs, failed to adequately protect and restore the site. The letter claims that incompetence of the Trust led to irreversible damage to the tombs, with notable issues such as the loss of original layers, water seepage, poor-quality restoration work, and an inability to prevent vandalism. The letter further highlighted the severe deterioration of the Qutb Shahi Tombs, including the tomb of Muhammad Quli Qutb Shah, as the stones have been left exposed and critical layers have been removed. It was also pointed out that the mismanagement of funds and resources has severely compromised the structural integrity of the site. The PIL sought the intervention of court to ensure immediate protection measures for the tombs, and termination of AKTC’s contract, as well as an investigation into the alleged mishandling of funds. After hearing the matter, the bench adjourned the case to April 1, 2025, for further proceedings.

Challenge to Section 202 of IPC

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ petition challenging the validity of Section 202 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the corresponding Section 239 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023. The writ plea was filed by Sunil Singh Jadhav, who assailed the Constitutional validity of the provision concerning the "intentional omission to give information of an offence by a person bound to inform." The panel comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara, was dealing with a writ plea wherein the petitioner was implicated in a murder investigation. The incident in question occurred on November 15, 2017, at Sanathnagar, where the petitioner was accused of failing to report a murder he allegedly knew about. The petitioner contended that Section 202, which punishes individuals who “knowingly” or “having reason to believe” that a crime has been committed, intentionally omits to inform authorities, is unconstitutional due to the vagueness of these terms. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the language used in the section is overly broad, and as a result, it could lead to unjust legal consequences based on “hearsay evidence.” The petitioner claimed that the case against him was built solely on the confession of another accused, stating that the petitioner was informed about the murder but did not report it. However, the petitioner contended that he did not witness the crime directly and was not obligated to report it based on second-hand information. Counsel further argued that said provision violates his fundamental rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to privacy. The panel accordingly ordered notices to the respondents.

Widow's plaint on Eflu over pension

Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao of Telangana High Court will decide a writ plea challenging the alleged inaction of the English and Foreign Languages University (Eflu) in releasing pensionary benefits and granting compassionate appointment to a nominee of a deceased university employee. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by D. Salomi, who claimed to be the legally wedded wife and nominee of a deceased university employee. According to the petitioner, despite being entitled to pensionary benefits as per university rules, EFLU authorities failed to release them, even though the respondent university had admitted her entitlement. The petitioner further contended that in 2016, Eflu cited lack of vacancies to deny her claim for compassionate appointment, but over the past nine years, several vacancies must have arisen, yet her request was kept in cold storage. She argued that the denial of her rights was based on a baseless legal dispute initiated by unrelated third parties. The petitioner sought immediate release of all pension benefits with bank interest for delayed payment and a direction to appoint her in a suitable post under compassionate grounds. The Eflu failure to act, despite clear entitlement under the rules is alleged to be illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional.

Stay on telegraph lines on power poles extended

Justice Surepalli Nanda of Telangana High Court extended interim protection to Jio Digital Fibre Private Limited, by directing Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited (TSPDCL) not to take coercive action against the petitioner’s telegraph lines installed on electricity poles. The direction came in a writ plea challenging demand notices issued by TSPDCL. The telecom service provider is seeking to set aside the demand notices, which allegedly violates the Indian Telegraph Right of Way Rules (Rules). According to the petitioner, TSPDCL’s demand notices were arbitrary and contrary to the statutory framework governing compensation for using electricity poles for telegraph lines. The petitioner sought a direction to ensure that TSPDCL collects compensation strictly in accordance with the Right of Way Rules. The judge passed the interim order directing TSPDCL not to take any coercive action provided that the petitioner pays compensation

as per the rules. The judge further directed TSPDCL to file its response, and posted the matter for further adjudication.