Legal Briefs | Telangana HC directs reconsidering application for Judicial Clerkship

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court faulted the authorities for rejecting an application for judicial law clerk for hyper technical reasons. It directed its Registry, the administrative wing of the court, to reconsider the case before the schedule date of interview. The panel comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice N. Narsing Rao was dealing with a plea filed by Shaik Rafi. The petitioner contended that he graduated law with first division in June 2024 and applied for judicial law clerkship at Telangana High Court. His counsel Syed Ahmed argued that despite fulfilling all the eligibility criteria, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected and he was not called for the interview scheduled from February 17 to 21. Counsel appearing for the Telangana High Court stated that the candidate failed to enclose a copy of 10+2 pass certificates. Speaking for the panel, Justice P. Sam Koshy pointed out that there was not specific clause in the notification or application form requiring him to enclose the previous educational certificates. He said it was unfair to reject the application on the ground that candidate ought to have assumed and enclosed all educational certificated even though it was not specified in notification. The panel directed the Registrar, Telangana High Court to forthwith consider the application of the petitioner and call for interview before February 21 on satisfying all other requirements.

Case against PFI quashed

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of Telangana High Court quashed criminal proceedings against office bearers of the Popular Front of India (PFI) in connection with a 2018 case alleging that they organised a meeting leading to disrupting of public order. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed Shaik Sajid Sajju and 10 others. It was alleged that the petitioners organised a meeting with PFI activists, allegedly conspiring to incite violence against members of the Students’ Federation of India (SFI) and the Hindu community, and disrupting public order. Against the petitioners, a case registered on 2018 at Jagtial Town police station based on a complaint filed by the inspector. The chargesheet was filed, and the case was heard in the court of Jagtial. The petitioners challenged the proceedings, arguing that the charges were not legally maintainable. During the hearing, the petitioners’ counsel contended that the charges under Sections 186 and 187 of IPC which pertained to obstruction of public servant from performing their duties could not be sustained as they were filed in violation of Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). According to Section 195(1)(a), offence under Section 186 and 187 of IPC require a written complaint from the concerned public servant rather than a police officer. He cited a Supreme Court judgment which established that when offences requiring a formal complaint under Section 195 CrPC are combined with other charges, the entire prosecution may be rendered invalid. The Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the petitioners had also been charged under other sections, including criminal conspiracy. It was contended that the magistrate had the authority to take cognisance of these offences and that the case should proceed to trial. After reviewing the arguments, the judge held that the prosecution of the petitioners was legally untenable. The judge held that since the offences formed part of the same transaction, the entire case was vitiated, and any further proceedings would amount to an abuse of the legal process. As a result, the judge quashed the case against all the accused.

Reconsider nod for wrestling tourney: HC

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of Telangana High Court directed the police commissioner and the ACP to reconsider the request of Hyderabad Samaj Sewak Welfare Association seeking permission to use a sound system and police protection for a wrestling competition in the city. The judge dealt with a writ plea filed by the association represented by its president Habeeb Abdullah Jeelani, who challenged the refusal of permission by the authorities, contending that it was arbitrary and violated the Constitution. The wrestling competition is scheduled to happen at Abbas Stadium, Chandrayangutta, from February 20 to 24. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material on record, the judge observed that the deputy inspector-general of police, CRPF, had granted permission. Counsel appearing on behalf of the official respondents submitted that the writ plea became infructuous, as commissioner of police rejected the petitioner’s application, citing potential law and order issues and the hyper-sensitive nature of the area. The petitioner relied on a prior court order, arguing that police permission was not required as the venue is within CRPF premises. The judge directed the police authorities to reconsider the request of the petitioner, including the sound system permission, while granting them the liberty to impose necessary conditions. The judge further ordered the respondent authorities to consider and pass an order within two days.

Permission granted for Shivaji event

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy passed an interim order permitting the president of Veer Shivaji Sena to organise and perform the Sri Chatrapathi Shivaji Maharaj Jayanti celebrations/programme on February 19. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Nitin Nandkar, president Veer Shivaji Sena. The writ petition was preferred by the petitioner aggrieved by the actions of the police authorities in squatting over the issue of either granting or refusing the permission to the petitioner to organise the programme. Counsel contended that the petitioner in continuance of achieving its aims and objectives intended to organise the Utsav from 4 pm, opposite Hanuman Mandir, Jambagh. Counsel for the petitioner Naresh Reddy Chinnola contended that despite making several requests to the police authorities, they failed to grant permission. It was contended that the actions of the respondent authorities are illegal and in violation of the Constitution. During the hearing, the additional government pleader (AGP) argued that the proposed site is a high-traffic area and could pose law and order concerns. Additionally, the AGP emphasised the need to verify the petitioner's credentials and raised the possibility of communal tensions arising if the festival were conducted on the main road. Taking into consideration that the petitioner’s application had not been acted upon and acknowledging the precedent of the petitioner having organised similar events, including during Ganesh Chaturthi and Ramanavami, the judge directed the official respondents to grant permission for the event. The permission was granted with specific conditions to ensure public order and safety. The judge mandated that no person with criminal antecedents would be allowed to address the gathering, no law and order issues should arise, and no speeches inciting communal discord would be permitted. The respondent authorities were instructed to impose these conditions and any other necessary conditions to ensure the event is conducted peacefully.