Telangana Legal Briefs | Writ in HC seeks FIR against KCR

HYDERABAD: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court directed the state to file its response to a PIL seeking registration of an FIR against BRS president and former chief minister K. Chandrasekhar Rao. The panel, comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara, was dealing with a PIL filed by one A. Venkatarami Reddy, who contended that the BRS had a sprawling headquarters in Banjara Hills, Hyderabad on the land allotted by the erstwhile AP government. The building was used not only for party affairs but also for running their own TV channel, T-News, in violation of the rules and regulations of the land allotment. The PIL sought action against senior IAS officer Naveen Mittal and others. It is alleged that 11 acres of land in Kokapet village, whose value was estimated at Rs 11,000 crore was alienated in favour of TRS party for a paltry sum of Rs 37 crore. It is alleged that the petitioner wanted the director general of ACB to register a crime against Rao and IAS officers and submit the report from time to time to the High Court. The petitioner also sought immediate resumption of the land. The panel directed the state to file their response within four weeks and two weeks thereafter for the petitioner to file his reply if any.

HC suspends death penalty 

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court suspended the execution of the death penalty awarded to Ragula Sai, alias Nagula Sai, in the Narayanaguda triple murder case. The panel, comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, was dealing with a criminal appeal filed by the accused challenging his conviction and sentence. The II additional sessions judge at Nampally sentenced the petitioner to death and his co-accused A. Rahul to life imprisonment for their involvement in the brutal murder of the latter’s wife, their ten-month-old son Vishnu and Nagaraju, partner of the wife in November 2022. The prosecution alleged that Rahul, nursing a grudge against Aarti for leaving him and living with Nagaraju, assisted Sai in setting the victims ablaze after confirming their whereabouts. Aarti, who was eight months pregnant at the time of the attack, delivered a stillborn child before succumbing to injuries. Challenging the trial court’s judgment delivered in December 2024, Sai filed a criminal appeal seeking acquittal, contending that the conviction was not based on a proper appreciation of evidence. He also sought an interim suspension of the execution, which was scheduled for March 10, 2025. After hearing the arguments, the High Court suspended the death penalty, relying on a Supreme Court verdict, which mandates that a High Court must independently assess the entire record before confirming a death sentence. The panel admitted the appeal and directed the additional public prosecutor to verify whether any appeal had been filed against the conviction of the second accused, Rahul.

HC directs reinstatement of head constable

The Telangana High Court set aside the dismissal of a head constable in the 10th battalion, Telangana State Special Police (TSSP) and directed his reinstatement with full-service benefits, including payment of salary arrears. Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka held that the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate to the alleged offence and that the disciplinary proceedings were flawed. The judge dealt with a writ plea filed by Talari Narayanappa, who contended that he was removed from service after being accused of sleeping on duty, which was considered a violation of the APSP Manual Standing Orders and APS Civil Services conduct rules. The case stemmed from an incident in July 2014, when a loaded SLR magazine with 20 rounds went missing. Based on a complaint, the petitioner was suspended along with other personnel, but while the others were reinstated within two months, his suspension continued. The department alleged that he was absent from duty without permission and later opened and closed the bell of arms without authorization. A criminal case was registered, and he was arrested and placed in judicial custody. However, after trial, he was acquitted in October 2018 on the grounds that the prosecution had failed to provide cogent and proper evidence to prove the charge of theft. Despite this acquittal, the department did not reconsider his removal order, which was issued in January 2016. The petitioner contended that his dismissal was arbitrary and discriminatory, as other personnel involved in the incident were reinstated while he was singled out for harsh punishment. He also argued that the departmental inquiry considered charges related to theft, despite a tribunal order restricting the proceedings to his alleged absence from duty. The judge observed that while disciplinary authorities have discretion in imposing penalties, the punishment must be proportionate to the misconduct. It found that removing the petitioner from service for being absent for a few hours, especially after seeking oral permission from a superior, was excessively harsh. Citing Supreme Court precedents on proportionality in disciplinary actions, the judge held that the punishment imposed was shockingly disproportionate. The judge held that since the petitioner already suffered prolonged suspension and legal proceedings, further penalty was unnecessary. The dismissal order was set aside, and the judge directed his reinstatement as head constable with full-service benefits, including arrears of salary from July 2014, until his retirement in July 2020. The authorities were given two months to implement the order.

HC stays implementation of Bar Council's model by-laws

The Telangana High Court injuncted the Bar Council of Telangana from taking coercive action against bar associations that have not adopted the newly imposed model by-laws. The judge made clear that the order was not an endorsement of the resolutions made by various bar associations extending the term of office of elected members from one to two years. Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy is dealing with a writ plea filed by many bar associations across Telangana, challenging the directive issued by the Bar Council of Telangana. The petitioners argued that the imposition of model by-laws and the mandate to conduct elections before March 31, 2025, were arbitrary and in violation of the Advocates Act, 1961, and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Senior counsels for the petitioners contended that the Council has no authority to interfere in the election processes of bar associations, which function independently. It was argued that many associations had already passed general body Resolutions unanimously extending the tenure of their executive bodies from one year to two years. The senior counsel, appearing for the council, argued that several associations had voluntarily adopted the new by-laws, while others did not provide clarity on their stance. The senior counsel for the petitioners pointed out that more than 80 per cent of the bar associations have unanimously resolved to extend the term from one year to two years, the judge accordingly reserved the liberty to the respective bar associations to intimate the same to the Bar Council of Telangana so that the respective associations and the council can resolve the issue amicably. The matter is now posted for the next hearing on March 18.

Forgery of collector's signature: HC grants bail

Justice K. Sujana of the Telangana High Court granted anticipatory bail to Gannoju Rajashekar, a businessman accused of forging the signature of the district collector, Sangareddy. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition seeking anticipatory bail in connection with an alleged land document forgery. According to the prosecution, the petitioner along with other accused fabricated official documents by forging the signature of the collector to facilitate the illegal sale of land belonging to a freedom fighter. The petitioner contended that his name was not originally mentioned in the FIR and was later added without substantial evidence. The counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that there were no specific allegations against the petitioner, and he had no role in the alleged offence. The judge observed that apart from general allegations, no specific role was attributed to the petitioner. Considering the circumstances of the case, the judge enlarged the petitioner on anticipatory bail, subject to conditions.