Hyderabad: Justice K. Sujana of the Telangana High Court upheld citizens’ conditional rights to sloganeering in public. She quashed a criminal complaint against members of Telangana Vidyarthi Vedika facing trial before the first Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. They were charged with proposing a protest programme at the Ambedkar Statue in May 2019, protesting against the arrest of professor Sai Baba and Varavara Rao, who were arrested by the Maharashtra government. It stated in the complaint that the named persons along with others without permission started a dharna, obstructed the free traffic and caused public nuisance. Thirteen members were shifted to the police station and 18 others again assembled constituting what the police called an unlawful assembly. The petitioner contended that the entire prosecution was misconceived. The protest itself shows that there was no obstruction of traffic. It was also contended that the entire evidence of the police constabulary and that no member of the general public was examined. Allowing the quash proceedings the judge referred to the verdict of the apex court that Article 19 of the Constitution confers freedom of speech to the citizen of the country and thus this provision ensures that the petitioners could raise slogan albeit in a peaceful and in orderly manner without using offensive language. “In the present case, there are no allegations that these petitioners used offensive language and there is no evidence to show that due to unlawful assembly, nuisance is caused to the public and that they have obstructed free flow of traffic or obstructed the public or the authorities from discharging their duties. Hence, continuation of proceedings against these petitioners is not tenable and the same is liable to be quashed,” Justice Sujana said.
HC junks challenge to preventive detention
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Sambasivarao Naidu dismissed a Habeas Corpus writ petition challenging an order of preventive detention passed under the Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act. The detenue, Bandaru Govardhan Reddy, was enlarged on bail in four cases in NDPS Act. It was pointed out that while three of the cases were still pending, the impugned order of preventive detention were unjustified and improper. It was also contended that since he was implicated in four cases in eight years, he was not a habitual offender. Appearing for the government V.T. Kalyan pointed out that the purpose of the enactment was in view of the serious threat to welfate and health of the petitioner and to curb persons engaged in the Acts of illicit trafficking. Huge quantity of Alprazolam and Ketamine Hydrochloride were said to have been recovered from possession of the detenue. In October 2021 nearly 5 kg of Mephedrone were also recovered. Dealing with the question of public order in contradistinction to law and order. Justice Sam Koshy for the bench said “One has to imagine three concentric circles. law and order represent the largest circle within which is the next circle representing public order and the smallest circle represents security of the State. It is then easy to see that an act may affect law and order but not public order, just as any act may affect public order but not security of the state. Quoting eminent thinker and author, Sophocles, the judge said "Law can never be enforced unless fear supports them." After a detailed reference to judgments and facets of preventive detention, the panel said, “Keeping in view the statutory requirement under Section 3(1) of the Act of 1988, what is apparently visible from the factual matrix narrated in the writ petition itself, is that, the detenue stands prosecuted in four (04) different cases under the Act of 1988 and all four cases deal with large quantities of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. In one of the cases, out of four (04), the trial being concluded has resulted in the conviction of the detenue and moreover, in all the four cases, the quantity seized is huge. Therefore given details in the factual backdrop itself is sufficient for any authority to have or draw a subjective satisfaction as is envisaged under Section 3(1) of the Act of 1988 that it is a fit case for imposition of preventive detention against the detenue herein.” The panel accordingly upheld the detention and dismissed the writ petition.
HC rejects writ of medicos
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court on Wednesday negated the claim of medical students to grace marks at the end of the first year MBBS course. The panel of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar dismissed a bunch of writ petitions filed by students challenging the applicability of the Central Board of Medical Education guidelines to their cases. Prabhakar Chikkudu, counsel for the petitioners contended that the stated regulations prescribed that a student was required to pass each of the 3 subjects like Anatomy, Biochemistry and Physiology individually to be promoted to the next year. Such a prescription, Prabhakar contended, was introduced under the said guidelines after the petitioners joined the first year. He argued that the new stipulation to the second year denied the students their legitimate expectations. The panel rejected the plea. However, the panel left it open to the Board of Medical Education to consider on merits the case of the petitioners if so advised.
HC dumbs writ against SBI officers association
Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy of the Telangana High Court refused to stall elections to the State of Bank of India Officers Association. The judge rejected at the threshold, a writ plea filed challenging election to the association, without a detailed voter list and through Mobile Based Online Voting System which is not approved by any authority. The petitioner complained of inaction by the labour officer and pleaded for the representation to be considered before the elections scheduled for June 21. The judge made it clear that the court would not interdict an election process after issuance of the election notification. He advised the petitioner that the appropriate course of action would be to challenge any alleged irregularities through an Election Petition after the elections had been conducted.
