The Government Pleader sought time to obtain instructions in the matter. Accordingly, the judge posted the matter on Wednesday for further hearing.
Hyderabad: Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court will continue to hear a writ plea on the enforcement of Telugu as a compulsory second language in CBSE schools in the state. The judge admitted a writ plea filed by Jaivi Jain and nine other students, challenging the Director of School Education’s memo of December 7, 2024, and related proceedings, which mandate Telugu as a second language for students in Grades VI to X from the academic year 2025–26. The petitioners, represented by their parents, argued that this sudden imposition violates their fundamental rights under the Constitution. The petitioners contended that the children, many of whom have studied Hindi, Sanskrit, and French as second or third languages since primary school, are now being forced to switch to Telugu with little preparation. Highlighting Hyderabad’s cosmopolitan demographic, the writ plea points out that only 43.35 per cent of the city’s population speaks Telugu as their mother tongue, according to the 2011 Census, making the blanket enforcement of the language unreasonable and exclusionary. Further, the petitioners contended that the Telangana (Compulsory Teaching and Learning of Telugu in Schools) Act, 2018, calls for a phased implementation of Telugu from Grades I and VI onwards. However, according to the petitioners, the respondent authorities and schools neither followed this gradual approach nor did they inform or prepare students accordingly during the past academic years. The petitioners also raised concerns about academic setbacks and discrimination against students who have no prior foundation in Telugu, especially those who have migrated from other states. The Government Pleader sought time to obtain instructions in the matter. Accordingly, the judge posted the matter on Wednesday for further hearing.
Lokayukta order for criminal prosecution challenged
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara stayed the operation of an order of the Lokayukta directing the initiation of criminal proceedings against the panchayat secretary. The panel was dealing with a writ plea filed by Boda Vasantha. It is the case of the petitioner that unofficial respondents addressed a complaint to the Lokayukta alleging that the sarpanch, upa-sarpanch and panchayat secretary, Islavath Thanda Village, Khammam misappropriated funds worth Rs 25 lakh. Counsel for the petitioner argued that by the impugned order, Lokayukta directed the initiation of criminal proceedings as well as criminal case against the petitioner, but, in the said proceedings, the petitioner was not issued any notice. The panel stayed the operation of the order till the next date of hearing and posted the matter after vacation.
HC stays I-T order on NIRD&PR
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice N. Narsing Rao granted an interim stay on an Income-Tax assessment order against the National Institute of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (NIRD&PR), a Central government institution operating under the Ministry of Rural Development. The panel admitted the writ petition filed by M/s National Institute of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, challenging the assessment order issued on February 28 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The order was passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner challenged the assessment order as illegal and unconstitutional, claiming that the proceedings violated the principles of natural justice and infringed upon their rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. It was argued that NIRD&PR is a statutory institution established by the Government of India and functions directly under the Ministry of Rural Development, thus enjoying the status of an entity exempt under Article 12 of the Constitution. The institution is not an assessee representative under the Income-Tax Act. Though the return of income was not filed initially, the petitioner contended that under the amended Section 148 of the Act, once a return is filed in response to a notice, it must be treated as a return filed under Section 139, invoking the same procedural and legal rights available under the Act. It was alleged that the assessment order is entirely silent on these legal aspects and fails to justify the reassessment proceedings. The order merely extracts the reply of petitioner without offering any reasoned response or findings on critical legal contentions. Further, no inquiry or discussion was held regarding the institution’s exempt status, rendering the order void ab initio. The Assessment Unit of the Income-Tax Department contended that a notice under Section 148 was issued on January 13, and the petitioner duly filed a reply on February 5. The department contended that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the order, the appropriate remedy was to file an appeal before the appellate authority and that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be invoked in tax matters unless there is a gross violation of law or jurisdictional error. The panel found that the matter raised substantial questions of law and that the legality of the assessment process and the procedural compliance under Section 148A needed judicial scrutiny. Taking note of the governmental status of the petitioner and the absence of any findings in the assessment order on critical legal submissions, the court ordered an interim stay on the assessment order and posted the matter for further adjudication.
HC admits plea by medical professor
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ plea challenging the disciplinary action imposed by the director of medical education on an associate professor at Osmania Medical College and Osmania General Hospital. The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by Dr A. Laxminarayana questioning the legality of proceedings initiated against him, under which a punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed, and a period of service from August 2017 to August 2021, was treated as unauthorised absence and marked as extraordinary leave. The petitioner contended that the action was based on a perverse enquiry report and that his statutory appeal was rejected by the principal secretary, health, medical and family welfare department through a memo without assigning any reasons. The petitioner alleged that the rejection violated settled legal principles and amounted to a colourable exercise of power. The petitioner is further seeking a direction to consider his case for promotion to the post of professor from the date on which his junior was promoted, along with notional benefits, without reference to the impugned disciplinary orders. The judge directed the respondent authorities to file their response and posted the matter for further adjudication.
