High Court Refuses to Cancel DGP Shivadhar Reddy’s Appointment; Orders Panel to UPSC

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court was not inclined to set aside the government order issued to appoint senior IPS officer B. Shivadhar Reddy as Director-General of Police with full additional charge (FAC). The court on Wednesday however directed the government to forward a a fresh list of eligible IPS officers to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for consideration for the post of DGP-Head of police force, in line with directions issued earlier by the Supreme Court. The court also ordered the government to inform it about compliance with its direction and listed the case for hearing on January 20.

Justice Pulla Karthik issued the order while hearing a petition filed by Hyderabad-based social activist T. Dhangopal Rao, who contended that the appointment of Shivadhar Reddy was contrary to the Supreme Court guidelines for selecting a full-time DGP. The court had earlier expressed concern over the state’s alleged failure to adhere to the Supreme Court’s directions on the matter.

During the hearing on Wednesday, Advocate-General A. Sudershan Reddy placed written submissions before the court outlining the correspondence exchanged between the government and the UPSC regarding the panel of officers proposed for the DGP post. According to the submissions, the UPSC had sought certain clarifications and asked the state to resubmit a corrected list after pointing out deficiencies.

It was noted that in June 2025, the government had sought clarification from the UPSC on whether Abhilasha Bisht, a 1994-batch IPS officer originally allotted to the Andhra Pradesh cadre and currently serving in Telangana, could be considered for inclusion in the panel. The UPSC responded in the negative, pointing out that she continued to figure in the Andhra Pradesh cadre list.

Appearing for the UPSC, counsel Ajay Kumar told the court that the delay in finalising the panel was due to the need for clarifications and incomplete information provided by the state government. He added that the process was underway and would move faster once the required documents addressing the deficiencies were submitted.

The petitioner, arguing his case in person, strongly opposed these submissions and pressed for the cancellation of Shivadhar Reddy’s appointment, describing it as unlawful. He asserted that the officer had been continuing in the post for over two months without legal authority.

Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the the Telangana High Court expressed serious displeasure over the Miyapur police closing a complaint filed by an elderly doctor couple, citing “lack of evidence” without disclosing specific reasons, either to the complainants or to the court. The judge directed the Miyapur police station house officer (SHO) to appear before the and submit a detailed explanation.

The couple, residents of Miyapur, were facing criminal proceedings after their only daughter accused them of sexually harassing her since her childhood. Based on her allegations, Miyapur police registered a case in December 2024 under the sexual harassment provisions of the BNS and the Pocso Act. A chargesheet has been filed and the matter is pending before the trial court.

The parents maintained that the allegations were false and motivated. They contended that their daughter, now a major and a medical student, had falsely implicated them after they objected to her relationship with a married man with two children and belonged to another religion. Seeking an impartial inquiry, they approached the Director General of Police and the principal secretary, home, requesting transfer of the investigation to an officer of the rank of inspector-general of police or to the CBI.

They also lodged separate complaints in December 2024 and April 2025, alleging that their daughter was being unlawfully confined by her partner and sought police intervention to rescue her. Alleging inaction by the police on these complaints, the couple moved the High Court.

On December 17, the court had instructed the SHO to inform it about the status of these complaints. When informed that the complaints were closed for want of evidence, the judge questioned the lack of clarity and justification, especially since the issues were linked to a serious criminal case. Observing that vague closures were unacceptable, the court directed the SHO to appear with complete details and posted the matter for further hearing on December 29.