Telangana HC quashes multiple cases against BRS working president K T Rama Rao

In a relief to former Minister and BRS working president KT Rama Rao, the Telangana High Court on Monday quashed multiple criminal cases filed against him in connection with the Medigadda barrage drone incident and his public statements on the Musi River restoration project.

Justice K Lakshman, while hearing a batch of quash petitions filed by Rama Rao and other party leaders, including former MLAs Gandra Venkata Ramana Reddy and Balka Suman, found that the offences alleged against them did not warrant prosecution under the invoked provisions.

One of the FIRs pertained to a visit made by BRS leaders to the Medigadda barrage in July 2024, where they allegedly entered the premises without authorization and operated a drone camera over the site.

The visit was part of a political protest against the alleged non-utilisation of Kaleshwaram project waters by the incumbent government. A complaint was lodged by officials of the Irrigation Department at Mahadevpur Police Station, leading to the registration of a case.

The petitioners contended that the area had not been officially declared a “no-drone zone” or a protected



area under any statutory notification issued by the Ministry of Civil Aviation, even though the State government had recommended such classification.

The court accepted this argument, observing that no material had been placed on record to establish that Medigadda was a notified restricted zone, and consequently, the alleged drone use did not constitute a legal violation.

In a separate FIR registered at Utnoor police station, Rama Rao was booked following a complaint by Congress leader Athram Suguna, who objected to his public remarks alleging Rs 25,000 crore corruption in the execution of the Musi River rejuvenation project.

The police had invoked provisions relating to promoting enmity between groups, among others. However, the court found that the statements made by Rama Rao fell within the scope of political criticism and did not amount to any cognizable offence under the cited provisions.

It held that the invocation of such sections was misconceived and lacked the necessary ingredients for prosecution. Accordingly, the Court allowed the petitions and quashed the FIRs and related proceedings against the petitioners.