Telangana HC issues notices to State Assembly Speaker, MLAs over defection

1. The Telangana High Court on Monday issued notices to Telangana Assembly Speaker, Khairtabad MLA Danam Nagender and others in a writ plea filed by Padi Kaushik Reddy, BRS MLA of Huzurabad constituency. It may be recalled that Dhanam Nagender who got elected from BRS party, defected and joined Indian National Congress party in March, 2024. Justice B Vijaysen Reddy of Telangana High Court was dealing with a writ plea filed challenging the inaction of Telangana Assembly Speaker on disqualification petition filed by Kaushik Reddy on March 18, 2024 against Danam Nagender to disqualify Nagender under anti-defection law. The counsel representing Padi Kaushik Reddy argued that the Speaker did not act upon the disqualification petition and did not issue notices to Danam Nagender. By relying on apex court judgements, the counsel further argued that disqualification petition should be decided as early as possible and the same cannot be put on hold for several months. The counsel sought directions to Speaker to decide on the disqualification petition within a period of 4 weeks in terms of para 2(1)(a) of the Xth Schedule of Constitution of India. Hearing the same, the judge posted the matter to April 25 for the response of the State.

2. The Telangana High Court on Monday reserved Dasthagiri’s petition for orders which is filed seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to YS Avinash Reddy. Justice K Lakshman of Telangana High Court heard arguments pertaining to the criminal petition filed in the murder case of YS Vivekananda Reddy, former MP from Andhra Pradesh relative of AP Chief Minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy. It may be recalled that Shaik Dasthagiri is one of the accused who later turned as approver in the YS Vivekananda Reddy murder trial. Dasthagiri sought for cancellation of anticipatory bail of Avinash Reddy (A8) by stating that Avinash Reddy has violated the bail conditions by threatening and influencing the prosecution witness. The counsel for petitioner argued that Dasthagiri was offered 20 crores in the jail by Avinash Reddy’s henchmen i.e., Chaitanya Reddy, son of Shiva Shankar Reddy (A5) to withdraw himself as prosecution witness and also that his father was attacked by Avinash Reddy’s henchmen. The counsel further said that Dasthagiri’s life will be in danger if the bail is not cancelled. On the other hand, senior counsel T Niranjan Reddy representing YS Avinash Reddy contended that Chaitanya Reddy is a doctor and he visited jail as a part of medical camp, but he never met Dasthagiri. Mr Reddy submitted, RTI information received from jail authorities to Court wherein the jail authorities state that Chaitanya Reddy did not meet Dasthagiri during his visit to jail. That Dasthagiri’s father has met with an accident from some random two-wheeler and a hit and run case was also filed



regarding the same. Whereas the Special Public Prosecutor for CBI argued that they received Dasthagiri’s complaint on Avinash threatening him and the same is under investigation. CBI submitted a sealed report to Court which is furnished by local police pertaining to the allegations of Dasthagiri on Avinash. CBI further said that all the allegations of Dasthagiri against Avinash Reddy are true and the anticipatory bail needs to be cancelled. Senior counsel Nalin Kumar representing on-record counsel T Swetcha for the victim YS Sunitha, argued that Avinash Reddy and his family are highly influential persons. That the bail cancellation petition should be decided on probabilities of accused capability but not beyond the reasonable doubt and that Court has to balance between rights of the accused and fair trial.

3. A Two Judge bench comprising Justice K Lakshman and N. Tukaramji of Telangana High Court on Monday reserved orders in a contempt case to decide on the aspect whether a Judicial Official can be served notices in a case. The bench was dealing with a contempt case filed challenging the earlier orders of the court to pay compensation of 50,000 by the home department of the state to the registry in the High Court. It is the case of the petitioner that she was illegally detained for 7 days in the prison without 41-A notice issued to her. The petitioner contended that she was arrested for the offences of Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty, as she dashed a railings of Tarnaka while going to attend an exam. Petitioner argued that she was arrested from the examination centre and when she was placed before the Magistrate, she was sent to remand without following the due procedure of law. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the illegal dentition and seeking a compensation of 500 crores from the state police and the Magistrate. The Magistrate has failed to identify that the nature of offences before issuing remand notice, her primary duty is to check the offences before sending to remand, she said. Justice K Lakshman questions, “it is a case of contempt, try to explain what are the violations in compliance of order passed by this court to make her a party and issue notices to her.” .The petitioner replied, that every party in the writ should be made a party in the Contempt case and considering magistrate role in the trial she is fit to be a necessary party. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents contend that petitioner has wrongly implicated other respondents i.e, DSP and the Judge. The court has directed the state to deposit the compensation with High Court Registry. After hearing the rival contentions of both the sides the court reserved the matter for orders and directed the petitioner to implead the state represented by it’s principle secretary as Respondent.