Parental Care Is Also Daughters' Duty: Telangana HC

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy made the remarks while hearing a petition filed by a 66‑year‑old woman from Suryapet district, who alleged neglect by her son and sought enforcement of directions for the return of property documents and welfare protection. Currently residing with her daughter, she told the court that local authorities failed to implement an order passed in December 2025 under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act. Despite directions issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer for police and administrative support, she claimed subsequent representations yielded no response.

Taking note of these allegations, the court directed authorities in Suryapet to submit their explanation and posted the matter for further hearing on April 15.

During the proceedings, Justice Reddy expressed serious concern over the growing number of disputes reaching the court under the Senior Citizens Act. He noted that the court is increasingly being flooded with petitions filed by elderly parents seeking relief against their own children and expressed concern over the rising number of cases where parents seek eviction of their children from their properties. He called it a “serious social issue” that reflects changing family dynamics.

“Eviction should ideally be the last step, but many approach the court seeking it at the outset,” the judge remarked, emphasising the need for resolving disputes within families before resorting to litigation.

The judge observed that the responsibility of caring for elderly parents cannot be seen as one‑sided, emphasising that it rests on all family members, irrespective of gender. He cautioned that while property rights are often asserted, the corresponding duty to maintain and support parents is equally important.

He also highlighted a broader social concern, noting that in cases where parents have only daughters, the responsibility of care naturally falls on them. At the same time, he cautioned against situations where claims over property are made without corresponding willingness to support ageing parents.

HC denies relief to disqualified sarpanch

The Telangana High Court declined to grant relief to a disqualified sarpanch of Dhorapally village in Komaram Bheem Asifabad district, who was removed for not meeting the minimum age requirement at the time of filing nomination.

Justice E.V. Venugopal was hearing a petition filed by Soyam Sameera, challenging her disqualification by the revenue divisional officer (RDO) on the ground that she had not attained 21 years of age when she contested the election.

The petitioner argued that due procedure was not followed and questioned the authority of the RDO to act as agency divisional officer in a scheduled area, as Dhorapally falls within a notified agency region.

Government counsel submitted that the RDO based the decision on records including the Secondary School Certificate marks memo and bonafide certificate issued by the Board of Secondary School Education.

Dismissing the writ petition, the court held that election disputes must be resolved through the statutory mechanism of an election petition and not through writ jurisdiction.

The court said issues relating to eligibility and election results must be addressed before the competent forum prescribed under law, while granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies.

Red Corner Notice on KVP: HC seeks status, steps from Centre

The Telangana High Court on Wednesday directed the Union ministries of home affairs and external affairs to file detailed counter affidavits on the Red Corner Notice issued by Interpol against former Rajya Sabha member K.V.P. Ramachandra Rao.

Justice N. Tukaramji sought clarity from the Union government on the steps taken so far and the current status of the notice.

The Red Corner Notice was issued in 2014 following a request linked to a US indictment in a titanium mining bribery case involving alleged irregularities in leases during undivided Andhra Pradesh. Proceedings were stayed by the High Court in 2014, and no further action was taken.

During the hearing, senior counsel R.N. Hemendra Nath Reddy, appearing for Rao, said the case was politically motivated and raised during the 2014 general elections. He argued that the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Union government, particularly the home and external affairs ministries, and pointed out that no counter affidavits had been filed so far.

He also said the authority to issue, review or withdraw a Red Corner Notice rests with the Centre in coordination with Interpol, while the role of the CBI is limited to follow-up action.

The counsel argued that more than a decade had passed without progress, affecting the petitioner’s reputation and personal liberty. The court allowed a request to implead the State of Telangana as a respondent, noting that the petition was filed prior to the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh.

CBI special counsel T. Srujan Kumar Reddy opposed the plea, stating that alternative remedies were available. He said objections could be raised before the review committee in France and questioned the maintainability of the petition before the High Court. He also referred to provisions under the Extradition Act.

The court expressed concern over the delay in filing responses by the Union ministries and directed them to submit detailed replies on the status of the Red Corner Notice.