Telangana High Court dismisses petition against CM Revanth Reddy over alleged derogatory remarks

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court on Wednesday dismissed a writ petition filed by BRS leader Errolla Srinivas, which sought a direction to the Banjara Hills police to register a First Information Report (FIR) against Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy. Petitioner filed a complaint accusing CM Revanth Reddy of making derogatory remarks against BRS (Bharat Rashtra Samithi) leaders, including party supremo K. Chandrasekhar Rao, during a public rally in Palamuru on March 6, 2024. The petitioner’s plea argued that the Chief Minister’s alleged abusive comments could incite violence and disturb law and order, hence necessitating police action. However, the court found the petition to be “not maintainable” and stated that the petitioner, had no locus standi. Justice Vijaysen emphasized that the Chief Minister, as a public official, often addresses various public issues and issues statements in the capacity of his office. The judge opined that such speeches, even if critical or controversial, could not be automatically considered as grounds for criminal action. Accordingly the judge disposed the case.

2. Justice S. Nanda of the Telangana High Court directed the state authorities to urgently review the petitioners’ representation for a neutral entry in the ongoing Caste Survey, set to begin from November 6, 2024. The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by Mohammad Waheed, President of the Kula Nirmulana Sangham (KNS – Casteless Society of India), and another petitioner, challenging the state’s failure to include a separate



column for individuals identifying as “No Religion and No Caste” in the Samagra Intinti Kutumba Survey, also known as the Comprehensive Social, Economic, Educational, Employment, Political, and Caste Survey. The petitioners argued that the authorities were not considering their requests to introduce an additional column in the survey forms to accommodate people who voluntarily identify as “No Religion” (NR) and “No Caste.” They contended that by grouping such individuals under the “Other Religions” category, the state was misrepresenting their identities and violating their constitutional rights. The petitioners further alleged that the authorities had failed to implement earlier court orders issued in a public interest litigation (PIL) related to the issue. The petitioners sought a direction from the court to create a distinct column that would accurately represent the identity of individuals opting for “No Religion” (NR) instead of being classified under generic categories like “Other Religions.” In their petition, they argued that this omission not only overlooked their fundamental rights but also disregarded the growing number of individuals who do not identify with any religion or caste. Justice Nanda reaffirmed the importance of protecting an individual’s fundamental right to freedom of religion and directed the authorities to consider representations and take a decision on the issue in accordance with the law. The court also instructed the respondent authorities to file their response and posted the matter for further adjudication at a later date.