Telangana High Court issues notices; pleas to squash FIR against two BRS MLCs

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Monday heard petitions filed by two BRS MLCs seeking to quash an FIR registered against them over alleged derogatory remarks against the Assembly Speaker, allegedly referring to his caste. The court considered a petition by the police seeking suspension of the bail granted to the legislators. Notices were issued to the State and the complainant. Justice B R Madhusudan Rao heard the criminal petitions relating to crime 364 of 2026 registered by the Saifabad police against MLCs Thatha Madhusudhan and Nagirikunta Naveen Kumar Reddy. The case relates to alleged remarks made against the Speaker on September 7.

In one petition, the MLCs sought quashing of the FIR. In another, the ACP-Sultan Bazar, sought suspension of the September 8 order passed by the First Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, granting bail to the legislators. Public Prosecutor Palle Nageshwar Rao opposed the bail order. The complainant, P Venkatesham, OSD to the Speaker, also sought cancellation of the bail. Rao argued that the legislators had deliberately used derogatory language against a constitutional authority and referred to the Speaker’s SC identity. The alleged remarks were serious and amounted to a conspiracy to damage the Speaker’s reputation. He referred to the alleged remarks made by the MLCs on September 7.

Opposing the prosecution submissions, counsel T V Ramana Rao, appearing for MLCs, denied they had used the alleged abusive language. He instead accused Assembly marshals and the police deployed at the Assembly of humiliating the legislators by allegedly pulling down their trousers and attempting to damage their public image.

The counsel argued that the magistrate had rejected the police request for remand. He contended that, in these circumstances, the prosecution’s request to suspend the bail order was not justified.

He referred to a lunch-motion petition filed by the MLCs before a single HC judge on September 7, alleging high handed conduct by the marshals and the police. According to the counsel, the HC had found fault with the police action and directed the DGP to identify the officials responsible and take appropriate action.

The State subsequently challenged that order through a petition seeking vacation of the interim relief. The counsel submitted that the court had then directed the DGP to furnish names of the officials concerned to the Speaker, who was to consider appropriate action against them. During the hearing, Justice Rao asked the PP whether the police had issued notices to the MLCs under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, since the offences alleged against them attracted punishment of less than five years. The PP acknowledged that no notices had been issued.

He argued, however, that a notice was not necessary in the circumstances, given the allegations against the legislators and the registration of a case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He submitted that the MLCs ought to have been produced before the special court dealing with cases under the Act.

Ramana Rao rejected the prosecution’s arguments and maintained that the case had been registered against the legislators to settle political scores. He sought quashing of the FIR and opposed the request to suspend the bail order. The HC adjourned the petitions to November 2, for further arguments and to November 16, for responses to the notices and filing of counters by the State and the complainant.

The separate petition filed by the complainant seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the MLCs was also adjourned to November 16.

Court seeks response on non-disclosure of GO under RTI Act

The HC issued notice before admission in a writ challenging the State government’s failure to publish GOs in the public domain and alleged delays in providing information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.

The petition was filed by B Vinay Reddy, a student from Medak, who alleged that several departments had failed to comply with their obligations under the Act. He raised concerns over the Telangana Information Commission’s handling of his complaint.

Appearing for the petitioner, counsel Mamindla Mahesh submitted that the petitioner had sought information from the IT, Electronics and Communications department on January 17, 2026. As the information was not provided within the prescribed period, he filed a first appeal on February 22. However, the appellate authority had not decided the appeal.

The petitioner subsequently approached the TIC under Section 18 of the Act. According to the submissions, the complaint remained pending, with notices being issued without regular orders being uploaded or effective directions being given to the concerned public authorities to provide the information.

The counsel argued that the TIC was duty bound to ensure compliance with Section 4 of the Act, which requires authorities to maintain records properly and proactively disclose specified information.

He relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Kishan Chand Jain to contend that the TIC must ensure compliance with these disclosure requirements. The petition questioned the government’s practice of keeping GOs marked as “internal” on the Government Orders Issue Register (GOIR) portal without providing rear withholding them under Sections 8 or 9 of the Act.

Referring to earlier HC orders, the counsel submitted that the government had already been directed to comply with its own policy on publishing GOs. The earlier directions referred to GO 4, dated April 10, 2017, which provides for uploading GOs on the official websites of the departments.

Despite these directions, the petitioner alleged, several GOs remained unavailable to the public. The counsel referred to a response to a question raised in the Assembly by AIMIM member Akbaruddin Owaisi concerning the number of GOs and related documents issued and uploaded to websites.

The petitioner cited the alleged non-availability of a GO concerning the proposed acquisition of land in his village as an example of the difficulties caused by the lack of public access to records. He submitted that the order, which reportedly referred to an exemption from social impact assessment, was not available even after he sought information under the Act.

Apart from seeking directions to provide the requested information free, the petitioner asked the court to direct the government to publish all GOs issued since June 2, 2014, except those lawfully with-held under Sections 8 or 9 of the Act. He sought directions for the timely publication of future orders, the appointment of web information managers and the submission of a compliance report to the court. The petitioner challenged the TIC handling of complaint 4633/SIC-AR/2026.

He alleged that the Commission had failed to upload daily hearing orders, provide hybrid hearings and fix the next hearing date when the complaint was adjourned on October 13, 2026.

After hearing the counsel, the court issued notice before admission at the request of the Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the department.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Legal Correspondent

[email protected]