Telangana HC reserves verdict on defamation against TV channel

 Hyderabad: Justice E.V. Venugopal of the Telangana High Court reserved orders in a case pertaining to provocative statements made in a programme telecast on TV9 news channel after the formation of Telangana state. The criminal petition was raised as part of a complaint registered by L.B. Nagar Police Station on a private complaint by Jarnardhan Goud an advocate, and a chargesheet was framed accordingly.

The criminal petition was filed by the then CEO of TV9 Velicheti Ravi Prakash to quash the charges made against him in the chargesheet. The allegations are that his channel has telecast a programme by causing intentional insult to provoke a breach of trust and passing statements conducting public mischief against the MLAs and the Chief Minister of Telangana state.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that there were no such acts intending to provoke a breach of peace in the chargesheet. He also clarified that none of the depositions of the witnesses disclosed about the breach of public peace. Counsel further argued that the CEO is not concerned with the telecast and by relying on the Supreme Court judgment, he stated that even vicarious liability shall not attract. Counsel admitted that the said allegations may amount to insult but not provoke public peace. 

On the other hand, counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioners have admitted the offence by an apology and the current criminal case is pending before the trial court. He also contended that the programme has not only insulted the government but the entire Telangana state and it is not the first time such cases are being heard. He further highlighted that without a CEO's involvement, there shall be no functioning of the channel, and no news will be telecast or published. After hearing the rival contentions of both the counsels, the court has reserved the matter for orders.

 Manuguru railway line land acquisition set aside

Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar of the Telangana High Court set aside the land acquisition proceedings on failure to follow mandatory provisions as per law. The writ petition was filed by Sodi Seethamma and others, residents of Viplavasigaram village of Manuguru mandal, challenging the land acquisition proceedings initiated to acquire their lands for a railway line from Manuguru railway line to Bhadradri Thermal power station.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that there were multiple procedural lapses by the authorities. According to the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, before acquiring land in any tribal area, the consent of the gram sabha has to be taken. But in the present case, no consent was taken, and the authorities directly issued acquisition notification, which is contrary to the law.

The government pleader contended that all the procedures were followed. A gram sabha was conducted to obtain the consent of the villagers, who opposed the acquisition. The court, finding merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner, set aside the entire acquisition proceedings and directed the authorities to issue them afresh or conclude the process by negotiations as provided by law.

 TSWB CEO’s appointment challenged

Justice M. Sudheer Kumar of the Telangana High Court on Wednesday sought a response from The Telangana State Wakf Board (TSWB) and the state government for not appointing a full-time chief executive officer for the board.

The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Jahangir Khan, who alleges that TSWB had illegally appointed Khaja Moinuddin, as in-charge CEO and the government order issued in January 2023, appointing him as CEO should be set aside as it violates Section 23 of the Wakf Act 1995 read with rule 43 of Wakf Rules 2022, which makes it mandatory for the board to appoint a full-time CEO.

He further contended that such action of the authorities is unconstitutional and also in violation of the orders passed in another writ petition which directed TSWB to appoint a full-time Chief Executive Officer in accordance with Section 23 of the Wakf Act 1995.

 HC junks NTPC writ appeal

A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court refused to interfere with the judgment of a single judge rejecting a petition of the National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. The corporation had in 1992 challenged the action of the state in claiming compensatory afforestation twice the non-forest land and '15,000 per acre towards afforestation for setting up a thermal power plant in Karimnagar and ash pound, the government approved land over an extent of approximately 700 acres. The single judge pointed out that as per the provisions of the law, the state government is vested with powers to both constitute a reserved forest and also de-notify any area which is already constituted a reserved forest, pending the project permissions have been obtained and a total acreage of 1,600 was given to NTPC, including the lands in question, while so the central government enacted a Forest Conservation Act. The action of the state government in alienating the land for the purpose of the ash pound was faulted by the single judge as being inherently inconsistent with the provisions of the AP Forest Act but upheld it since the government had believed that an equally competing or superior public interest existed. The judge faulted the Union and the state governments since their officers never thought it fit to examine the core issue of the applicability of the 1980 Act to the lands in question.

The judge used strong language and said, “To say the least, a shameful state of affairs and an utter lack of coordination among the various departments of the government. If this be the plight of a corporation owned by the government of India in handling the issues, this court can well imagine what misery it would be for an ordinary citizen who should have the misfortune of dealing with any one of the departments. Apart from that in such an unseemly quarrel between the two departments of the state of Andhra Pradesh on one hand and the government of India and one of its instrumentalities (the petitioner) on the other hand, none of the officers concerned dealing with the matter ever thought it fit to have a comprehensive examination of the matter.”

The single judge had imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh each on the Central and state government. In an appeal the bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar did away with the payment of costs but refused to otherwise interfere with the order of the single judge.