Telangana HC Order on Friday in DGP Appointment Case

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court is scheduled to pronounce its order on Friday in a writ petition questioning the appointment of senior IPS officer B. Shivadhar Reddy as Director General of Police (head of police force) with full additional charge.

Justice Pulla Karthik of the High Court on Thursday heard the contentions of Advocate General A. Sudarshan Reddy, additional solicitor-general of India (ASG) B. Narasimha Sharma, appearing for the Union of India, UPSC counsel Ajay Kumar Kulkarni, and counsels representing the Union home ministry and Shivadhar Reddy in a petition filed by T. Dhangopal Rao.

The petitioner alleged that the appointment of Shivadhar Reddy violated the directions issued by the Supreme Court. The petitioner sought suspension of the appointment and a direction to the state to appoint a regular DGP in accordance with Supreme Court guidelines.

Advocate-General Sudarshan Reddy submitted that the state had acted in compliance with earlier judicial directions by forwarding a panel of eligible officers to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). It was returned by the UPSC, without specifying the reasons.

He contended that the UPSC ought not to have returned the proposal, in view of the court’s directions. Referring to a comparable situation in Andhra Pradesh, the AG pointed out that the neighbouring state had not forwarded a panel for nearly 11 years, from 2014 to 2025, yet the UPSC processed the proposal and a DGP was appointed.

Additional solicitor-general B. Narasimha Sharma submitted that the home ministry had no direct role in the appointment process and that the correspondence exchanged between the state government and the UPSC from April 2025 fell outside the scope of the writ petition.

UPSC counsel Ajay Kumar Kulkarni informed the court that Telangana had forwarded its recommendations after an unusually long gap of seven years, the previous panel having been sent in 2017, prior to the retirement of the then DGP. He stated that, in view of the prolonged delay and the Supreme Court’s binding directions governing DGP appointments, the commission had sought legal opinion from the Attorney General of India. Acting on that advice, the UPSC returned the state’s proposal on January 1, 2026, suggesting that Telangana approach the Supreme Court for clarification.

The Telangana High Court was not inclined to give interim relief from arrest to Aman Preet Singh, brother of actress Rakul Preet Singh, in a drugs case which was registered after an operation on December 19 in the Masab Tank police limits.

Justice Eada Tirmuala Devi of the High Court adjourned to January 19 in the petition that the accused filed, seeking an order to quash the charges against him. Aman Preet was arrayed as Accused No 7.

E. Venkata Siddartha, counsel for Aman Preet, argued that the case was registered on the confessional statement of the other accused, which was inadmissible and could not form the basis for conviction. He submitted that the police has determined that the financial transactions had taken place between Aman Preet and the first accused, alleging that the transactions in the name of APS referred to Aman Preet Singh.

The assistant public prosecutor submitted that more than four financial transactions took place between two. He relied on the recent Supreme Court orders on financial transactions of the persons against whom criminal charges were invoked.

The Telangana High Court on Thursday directed officials and a petitioner to provide a visual demonstration of the proposed alignment of the Old City Metro Rail at 2.15 pm on February 4. The order was issued in connection with a public interest litigation (PIL) which complained that the project was passing through sensitive heritage precincts.

Refuting the contentions of the PIL on an earlier occasion, the Hyderabad Airport Metro Rail Limited (HAMRL) had submitted that it would make a visual presentation of the proposed route on January 8. On Thursday, Mohd Imran Khan, additional advocate-general, representing the state, submitted that the video could not be screened due to technical issues. He sought more time.

Immaneni Rama Rao, counsel for the petitioner, also sought permission to make a visual presentation highlighting the alleged violations. Moreover, an interlocutory application was filed seeking permission.

Considering the requests, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin scheduled the video screening for 2.15 pm on February 4.

The PIL was filed by Act Public Welfare Foundation (APWF), represented by its president Mohammed Rahim Khan. The petition challenged the Hyderabad Metro Rail Phase-II, Corridor-VI alignment passing through Charminar Heritage Precinct No. 10, Falaknuma Heritage Precinct No. 12, and other notified heritage areas.

The petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus or appropriate directions to halt all construction and related activities until a comprehensive heritage impact assessment (HIA) is conducted by an independent expert committee and statutory approvals are obtained under the Telangana Heritage Act, 2017 and the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.

The petition urged the authorities to explore alternative alignments that do not adversely affect heritage structures such as Purani Haveli, Azakhana-e-Zehra, Jama Masjid, Darulshifa, and Moghalpura Tomb.

BRS MLA Kotha Prabhakar Reddy approached the Telangana High Court seeking to stay on further proceedings in the FIR registered against him in connection with the alleged encroachment of five acres of land of Durgam Cheruvu in Jubilee Hills.

Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti on Thursday directed the High Court Registry to place the petition before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders on listing before another bench.

During the hearing, Justice Anil Kumar expressed strong displeasure over the non-appearance of officials and the standing counsel of HYDRAA, despite the matter having been heard on January 6. The judge remarked that such conduct was being repeated in several cases involving alleged encroachment of government land. He declined to hear arguments on behalf of the petitioner, observing that the court was not being assisted by the authorities concerned.

R. Chandrashekar Reddy, counsel for Prabhakar Reddy, insisted on a hearing on Thursday. The Judge directed the Registry to place the case before the Chief Justice to take administrative decision to list it before another bench.