The panel, after hearing the arguments, issued notices to both the Central Government and the State Government to file their counters within three weeks and adjourned the matter for further hearing
HYDERABAD: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ petition filed challenging the reorganisation of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin is hearing a writ petition filed by Daram Guruva Reddy, who questioned the legality and constitutional validity of the state's decision to bifurcate GHMC into three separate municipal corporations, namely Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, Malkajgiri Municipal Corporation and Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned Government Order dated 11th of February 2026 issued by the Government of Telangana seeks to reorganise the existing municipal structure of Hyderabad at a time when a jurisdictional freeze is in force in connection with Census 2027. The petitioner would contend that the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, India, through a circular dated 13th August 2025, imposed a freeze on administrative and jurisdictional boundaries with effect from December, 31, 2025 to ensure uniformity and stability of territorial units during census operations. Counsel for the petitioner would contend that once such a freeze comes into operation, no state authority is permitted to alter, divide, merge or otherwise reorganise municipal or administrative limits until the completion of census-related processes. He would further contend that any such action during the subsistence of the freeze would not only disrupt census administration but would also run contrary to binding directions issued by the competent central authority. He would further contend that the impugned Government Order is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the constitution. The panel, after hearing the arguments, issued notices to both the Central Government and the State Government to file their counters within three weeks and adjourned the matter for further hearing.
HC Refuses to Interfere with Transfer of School Student on Discplinary Grounds.
HYDERABAD: Justice Renuka Yara of the Telangana High Court refused to interfere with the decision of Telangana Social Welfare Residential Sainik School (Boys), Rukmapur to issue a Transfer Certificate to a student for leaving the campus without permission. The writ petition, filed by Chityala Nithwik, a twelve-year-old student, through his natural guardian, sought a declaration that the action of school in denying him access to classes and compelling him to take a Transfer Certificate was illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner would contend that the action was disproportionate, and that the episode involved a single stray incident and should not result in denial of education. It was further argued that the parents were prepared to furnish an undertaking assuring good conduct and that a mid-year transfer would cause serious hardship to the student. Opposing the plea, the respondents would argue that the institution imparts specialised training aimed at preparing students for disciplined services, including the police and armed forces, where strict adherence to rules forms an essential component of the system. They informed the Court that a disciplinary enquiry followed an incident in December, when the petitioner and another student were allegedly found outside the campus without prior permission or intimation to the authorities. The school management argued that taking a lenient view could set an undesirable precedent affecting overall discipline. After considering the rival submissions, the Court was not inclined to compel the school to readmit the student contrary to its disciplinary framework and policies. At the same time, taking into account the academic interests and welfare of the student, Justice Renuka Yara directed the respondents to permit him to attend classes and appear for the year-end examinations. The judge further observed that thereafter, the petitioner and his parents may consider the proposal of the authorities regarding admission to an alternative school.
Bail to Accused in Dargah Vandalism Case.
HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court granted conditional bail to a student accused in a case of communal disturbance and vandalism. The judge was dealing with a Criminal Petition filed by Salunke Prashanth @ Mittu, arrayed as Accused No. 6, seeking enlargement on bail in connection with a crime registered at Kulsumpura Police Station, Hyderabad. According to the prosecution, on January 15 certain individuals raised religious slogans, removed a religious flag associated with Syed Sadat Dargah, set it ablaze on a public roadway, and damaged the dargah’s iron grills by pelting stones. It is alleged that nearby parked vehicles were also vandalized and the assailants fled the scene. The offences are under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including allegations relating to grievous hurt, mischief, and acts prejudicial to communal harmony. Counsel for the petitioner contented that the accused were innocent and there is no credible material demonstrating his complicity. It was further contended that no substantive evidence was gathered by the investigating agency to establish his participation in the alleged acts. The defence further highlighted that the petitioner remained in judicial custody since January 24, and that the investigation substantially progressed. The State opposed the plea, emphasizing the gravity of the allegations, the asserted disturbance of public peace, and the pendency of certain investigative formalities, including the receipt of medical documentation. The judge noted that the complaint itself referred to the involvement of “unknown persons,” introducing an element of evidentiary uncertainty at the present stage. The judge considering the duration of custody and the progress of the investigation, including the examination of prosecution witnesses concluded that continued incarceration was unwarranted and that the petitioner merited enlargement on bail.
