Telangana HC Seeks SP’s Response On Harassment Allegations
Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court ordered notice to Akhil Mahajan, Adilabad superintendent of police, in connection with a writ plea alleging targeting of a whistleblower in the garb of counselling.
Hyderabad: Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court ordered notice to Akhil Mahajan, Adilabad superintendent of police, in connection with a writ plea alleging targeting of a whistleblower in the garb of counselling. The judge directed Adilabad police officials to follow due process of law in the investigation of cases against the husband of the petitioner. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Swathi Shinde, who alleged that her husband, Rohith Shinde, was being falsely implicated in a series of criminal cases by police officials acting at the behest of SP Mahajan for exposing illegal cattle trafficking from the border areas of Telangana. Senior counsel V. Raghunath, appearing for the petitioner, contended that her husband had been regularly exposing and preventing illegal cattle transport to slaughterhouses from the Adilabad border, and that in retaliation, false cases were foisted to silence and harass him. It was further argued that the petitioner’s husband had a genuine apprehension for his life and liberty, and that the SP had been orchestrating what is described as a “rowdy mela,” which is unknown to law and being used as a tool of intimidation. Senior counsel argued that the activity, allegedly organised by the SP himself, constituted misuse of official authority and called for judicial scrutiny. Government pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner’s husband was involved in 13 criminal cases, some of which had ended in acquittal, while others were pending. As to the ‘rowdy mela’, the GP contended that it was a counselling session organised for individuals with a criminal background and denied any illegality. The judge prima facie found substance in the petitioner’s allegations and expressed concern over the manner in which the SP was allegedly conducting such events. Observing that the ‘rowdy mela’ appeared prima facie to be illegal, the judge directed issuance of personal notice to the SP, Adilabad, seeking his explanation and cautioned that all future steps against the petitioner’s husband must strictly comply with due process. The matter is posted for further hearing after two weeks.
2. HC strikes down retrospective CCI closure
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court on Friday set aside the order of closure of the Adilabad branch of the Cement Corporation of India. The judge allowed a writ plea filed by the Adilabad Cement Corporation of India Employees Union. The corporation, through its order in January 2017, effected the closure of the unit with effect from 2007. The closure was preceded by permission granted by the government. It was successfully contended in the writ petition that the concept of retrospective closure and consequential termination of service was unknown to service jurisprudence. Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka pointed out that it was not open for the authorities to effect closure retrospectively. The judge took cognisance of the fact that the permission was only for one year, and therefore, the management ought to have sought fresh leave or challenged the proceedings wherein the government required them to do so. Allowing the writ pleas, the judge directed the authorities to grant the members of the society all terminal benefits as if they were working up to May 2017. He accordingly set aside the order of closure to the extent of its retrospectivity and ensured that petitioners are not deprived of service benefits that would otherwise accrue to them if the closure were in 2017.
3. HC quashes case against actor Siddharth
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court quashed criminal proceedings registered against actor Siddharth in connection with a tweet referring to Olympic medallist and badminton champion Saina Nehwal. The judge was hearing a criminal petition filed by Siddharth seeking quashing of the FIR registered at the cyber crime police station, Hyderabad, under charges of insulting the modesty of a woman and publishing obscene material in electronic form. According to the complaint filed by Prerna Thiruvaipati, a Dalit researcher and women’s rights activist, the actor, on January 6, 2022, tweeted from his verified handle ‘@Actor_Siddharth’, a post allegedly referring to Saina Nehwal in a derogatory and sexist manner. The tweet stated: “Subtle cock champion of the world... Thank God we have protectors of India. Shame on you #Rihanna.” in response to her tweet expressing her concern over the security breach of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The complainant alleged that the comment was unprovoked, malicious and intended to defame and insult a celebrated woman athlete who had brought laurels to the country. The complaint alleged that the tweet not only affected the dignity of Saina Nehwal but also reflected misogynistic intent. On January 12, 2022, an FIR was registered based on the complaint and the cyber crime police initiated an inquiry. Counsel for the petitioner, N. Naveen Kumar, contended that the actor was issued a notice during the course of investigation, to which his advocate submitted a reply claiming it was a personal opinion expressed online and not criminal in nature. Thereafter, the petitioner issued a tweet apologising to Sania Nehwal on Twitter. The petitioner approached the High Court for the quashing of the FIR. After hearing submissions, the judge allowed the criminal petition and quashed the proceedings.
4. Nabard employee seeks parity with RBI pension rules
Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ petition filed by a retired officer of the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (Nabard) seeking full pensionary benefits from after having rendered 20 years of qualifying service. Petitioner T.R. Krishna Kumar Rao contended that he had initially joined the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and was later deputed to Nabard. His transfer was stated to be governed by express assurances of parity in service conditions and pensionary entitlements with RBI employees. The petitioner argued that despite such representations and notwithstanding admissions made in the response that Nabard employees are deemed to be on par with RBI staff, he had not been granted full pension for more than a decade since his retirement. He contended that the denial of parity violated not only the Nabard Act but also the RBI staff rules and regulations and amounted to arbitrary and unjustified inaction on the part of the respondent authorities. The petitioner sought direction from the respondents to grant him full pensionary benefits in line with his entitlements. The judge posted the matter for further hearing.
