Telangana HC Suspends CAT Order Against BrahMos DG Appointment

Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin on Tuesday granted interim relief to BrahMos director general Dr Jaiteerth R. Joshi. The panel suspended an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Hyderabad Bench. Earlier, the Service Tribunal set aside the appointment of Dr Joshi as director general in the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).

The Bench was hearing a writ petition filed by the Union of India, Department of Defence Research and Development (DDR&D) and chairman, DRDO, assailing the judgment of the Tribunal made in December 2025. It is the case of the petitioner that the tribunal had quashed the order of appointment made in November 2024, by which he was appointed as DG (BrahMos). The tribunal also directed the authorities to reconsider the claim of Dr Sivasubramaniam Nambi Naidu, distinguished scientist, for the post, besides restraining the authorities from continuing the selected candidate even in an in-charge capacity. Appearing for the Union of India, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contended that the tribunal had committed a serious jurisdictional error by interfering with a high-level strategic appointment made after a duly constituted selection process and final approval by the competent authority. He contended that the entire process, from the issuance of the in-house advertisement to the final appointment, was conducted strictly in accordance with the DRDS Rules, 2023, and the conditions stipulated in the advertisement.

The Solicitor General said that the post of DG (BrahMos) is not a routine promotional post but a sensitive, techno-managerial and strategic position, requiring a holistic assessment of merit, experience, leadership ability and organisational suitability. He contended that the selection committee, comprising eminent experts and senior officials, shortlisted three eligible candidates, all of whom were found equally meritorious and were awarded equal marks. In such circumstances, the panel forwarding three names in alphabetical order did not indicate arbitrariness or lack of application of mind. Mehta contended that seniority or designation alone does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment and that being a “distinguished scientist” was not a condition precedent under the rules for appointment to the post of DG (BrahMos). He stated that the final selection was based on the subjective satisfaction of the competent authority, which is permissible in law, particularly for posts involving national security and strategic defence interests. He cautioned that judicial interference in such matters would have serious institutional and administrative consequences and was contrary to a catena of judgements of the Supreme Court limiting judicial review in matters of expert selection. Senior counsel Niranjan Reddy, appearing for Dr Joshi, the outstanding scientist supplemented the submissions by contending that once all shortlisted candidates met the essential eligibility criteria, the selection necessarily involved a comparative assessment of overall suitability, including managerial competence and leadership qualities. He argued that such an assessment cannot be subjected to judicial scrutiny unless perversity or mala fides are demonstrated. On the other hand, Senior Counsel B. Nalin Kumar, appearing for the respondents, contended that the selection committee’s act of placing the candidates in alphabetical order without assigning reasons rendered the process arbitrary. He also contended that a distinguished scientist ought to have been given precedence over an outstanding scientist and that only when there is any non-availability of outstanding scientists can a distinguished scientist be given precedence. He further, relying on Supreme Court judgments, argued that courts are empowered to interfere where there is manifest arbitrariness or non-application of mind.

Advanced pregnancy termination declined

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court on Wednesday, based on the opinion of the Medical Board, declined permission for termination of pregnancy of a 17-year-old rape survivor. A duly constituted Medical Board opined that the pregnancy, having crossed 24 weeks, was not amenable to medical termination. The judge, however, directed the Government Maternity Hospital, Petlaburj, Hyderabad, to extend all necessary medical care. Telangana State Legal Services Authority (TSLSA) earlier moved the court seeking permission to terminate the pregnancy of the minor victim under the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act. The minor, a resident of Jangaon district, is a survivor of a case registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. As per the medical records placed before the judge, the pregnancy had reached 24 weeks and three days, as confirmed by a scan report dated December 27. The writ plea was initially taken up on January 2 as a house motion, in view of the urgency arising from the advanced gestational stage. Pursuant to the directions of the judge, the superintendent of the Government Maternity Hospital, Petlaburj, constituted a Medical Board to assess the feasibility of termination. Upon examination, the Medical Board opined that termination was not medically feasible due to the gestational age exceeding 24 weeks. The opinion, communicated through a letter dated January 6, was placed on record. Placing reliance on the expert medical opinion, the judge declined to permit termination of the pregnancy and disposed of the writ plea with a direction to the authorities to dispose the petitioner after ensuring continued medical assistance in accordance with law.

HC: Cinema ticket hike order not for all films

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar on Wednesday made it clear that an earlier order on enhancing cinema ticket prices was not applicable to all films. The panel restricted the applicability of the benefit of enhanced ticket pricing only to the films covered under the earlier order. The panel left it open to other filmmakers to approach the state government in this regard. Earlier, it may be recalled that when the state government enhanced ticket rates of the Telugu film Akhanda 2, a writ petition was filed. A single judge restrained the Special Chief Secretary from issuing such memos. The said order was challenged after the enhanced ticket rates for the film Akhanda 2 were suspended by the Division Bench earlier. The People Media Factory, which is the appellant before the Division Bench pointed out that the omnibus fiat restraining the Chief Secretary affected other movies and filmmakers also and that the order of the single judge was beyond the scope of the writ petition. It was argued before the bench today that the issue before the single judge was on the power of the executive to override the statutory provisions and therefore, the order of the single judge was not illegal. After hearing the parties, the panel restricted the operation of the impugned order dated December 9, 2025, to only three films, namely Pushpa, OG, and Game Changer, which were the subject matter of the writ proceedings. The panel clarified that the interim restraint would not apply to other films.