A two-judge vacation panel of the Telangana High Court accepted a habeas corpus writ plea seeking custody of a minor boy presently under the care of the child welfare committee, Ranga Reddy district.
Hyderabad:A two-judge vacation panel of the Telangana High Court accepted a habeas corpus writ plea seeking custody of a minor boy presently under the care of the child welfare committee, Ranga Reddy district. The panel was hearing a petition filed by a couple, who claim that the child is in the illegal custody of the respondent authorities and should be returned to them or his biological mother. The petitioners said that the third petitioner was the biological mother of the child and that the present custody arrangement was not backed by any legal adoption. The petitioners contended that neither the respondents nor any other person had a lawful claim over the minor. It was argued that custody must either lie with the biological parent or the adoptive parents. The matter arose against the backdrop of recent police investigations into an alleged child trafficking racket. The government pleader appearing for the government contended that the child in question had earlier claimed to be the son of a woman whom he identified by name, but police inquiries were still ongoing to ascertain the biological origins. An FIR was registered on June 10 and the boy has since been placed in safe custody by the authorities. Taking note of the submissions, the judge declined to pass any interim direction for the transfer of custody and posted the matter for further hearing after the summer vacation.
HC stays demolition of alleged illegal building
Justice J. Sreenivas Rao of the Telangana High Court, sitting in a vacation court, suspended the demolition proceedings initiated by the GHMC against a private entity over alleged unauthorised construction, observing that the action was taken without following due process of law. The judge admitted a writ petition filed by Sree Kailas Industrial Gases Limited, which sought to declare the authorities’ issuance of speaking orders as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without considering their prior representations and without adhering to the mandatory legal procedures. It was further argued that the demolition order violated the Supreme Court’s recent judgment concerning the demolition of unauthorised structures, which mandated strict procedural safeguards. The petitioners submitted that the GHMC’s actions infringed upon their fundamental rights, particularly the constitutional right to property, and contravened the principles of natural justice. While suspending the demolition proceedings, the judge directed the petitioner not to undertake further construction on the property until further orders. The matter was posted for further adjudication after eight weeks, with directions to the respondents to file their response.
HC accepts pleas on validity of SC sub-classification
A two-judge vacation panel of the Telangana High Court accepted two writ pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the Telangana Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2025, and the related government orders issued to give effect to it. The panel comprising Justice Pulla Karthik and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda was hearing writ pleas filed by Mala Mahanadu, the Scheduled Castes Ikya Vedika and others. The petitioners challenged the legality of Act 15 of 2025 on the ground that it sub-classified Scheduled Castes and allocated specific percentages of reservation among them without collecting empirical data as to backwardness or inadequate representation of certain groups. It was argued that the sub-classification was solely based on the report submitted by the One-Man Commission appointed under a government order dated October 11, 2024, and that the report itself lacked supporting data. The petitioners contended that the legislation and the consequent GOs dated April 14, 2025, relating to notification of the Act, framing of rules, and earmarking of roster points, were in gross violation of the Constitution. The pleas relied on various judgments of the apex court prohibiting such sub-classification of Scheduled Castes without concrete data. The petitioners sought a declaration that the impugned Act and GOs were arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires the Constitution and to set aside the report of the One-Man Commission. The panel directed the state to file a response in the writ pleas and posted the matter after summer vacation.
