He noted that the petitioner applied for extension well within the validity period of her visa and could not be penalised for administrative delay
Hyderabad:Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court granted relief to a Russian national holding that rigid application of visa guidelines could not override humanitarian considerations, and directed authorities to extend her visa despite rules mandating exit for childless widows. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Alena Evgenievna Pavlova, who married an Indian citizen and was residing in India on an Entry Visa (X-1). Following the death of her husband in October 2025, her request for visa extension was declined by authorities on the ground that, under existing guidelines, a childless widow was not eligible for continuation of such visa and must exit the country. Challenging this action, the petitioner contended that she had no family support in Russia after being disowned, was suffering from medical ailments restricting travel, and was the sole caregiver for her ailing mother-in-law in India. She sought extension on humanitarian grounds to perform her last rites of her husband and continue residing with her dependent family member. The Union of India relied on visa guidelines to justify its decision, contending that in cases of childless widows, the visa must be cancelled and the individual directed to leave India. Rejecting this mechanical approach, Justice Bheemapaka observed that executive guidelines cannot be applied in a rigid manner where exceptional facts warrant compassionate consideration. It observed that failure to consider the application of the petitioner on merits amounted to non-application of mind and was arbitrary, offending the principles of fairness under Article 14 of the Constitution. He noted that the petitioner applied for extension well within the validity period of her visa and could not be penalised for administrative delay. Emphasising humanitarian factors such as her medical condition, lack of support system, and obligation to care for her elderly mother-in-law, the judge allowed the petition and the authorities were directed to extend her visa in accordance with law on compassionate grounds, while also restraining them from imposing any overstay penalty.
Verdict reserved on SOPs to protect CSWs
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court reserved its verdict on necessary standard operating procedures to be followed while carrying out rescue operations of sex workers. The panel comprising Justice Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda were dealing with a writ petition filed by Prajwala, an NGO working in the social sector. The complaint of the petitioner was that the government was facilitating the admission of victims into protective homes under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 without distinguishing between victims and offenders. The Act envisages a clear bifurcation wherein trafficked women are to be treated as victims and placed in protective homes under Section 17, while organisers, traffickers and brothel-keepers were to be prosecuted as accused. In practice, the petitioner contended, this distinction was blurred, with persons cited as accused in PITA cases being routinely admitted into protective homes meant for victims. It sought specific procedures to be standardised so that a distinction is maintained across processes. It then submitted a detailed list of procedures to be followed. The state government independently gave a list of standard operating procedures (SOPs) that they seek to follow while carrying out rescue operations or while effecting arrests. Deepak Misra, counsel for Prajwala, submitted those SOPs and a tabular form of all the commonalities and minor differences between the two SOPs. The exercise revealed broad convergence between the two sets, with points of divergence confined to a narrow band. He prayed on behalf of Prajwala that the SOPs are exhaustive and substantial, and the same should be given effect to. He also sought independent directions to judicial officers as to the manner in which they must deal with such matters and sought a word of caution to judicial officers not to initiate contempt cases against rescue homes in cases where they are apprehensive about rescue operations and where they believe that people coming in as victims are actually perpetrators of sexual offences. After hearing both sides, the bench reserved its verdict.
HC to hear doctors’ plea on therapy
Justice Renuka Yara of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ petition challenging Medical Council proceedings against doctors over platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy, questioning compliance with mandatory inquiry procedures. The judge is dealing with a writ petition filed by Dr Sudheer Dara and another, registered medical practitioners associated with Epione Hospital, questioning the legality of disciplinary action initiated by the State Medical Council. The petitioners contended that PRP therapy was a recognised, minimally invasive, and evidence-based treatment used globally for conditions such as knee osteoarthritis. They stated that the treatment was neither harmful nor experimental, but served as an alternative to invasive surgical procedures, particularly for patients unwilling or medically unfit to undergo surgery. The dispute arose from a notice issued on October 22, 2024, by the Medical Council alleging that the petitioners were advertising themselves as pain management specialists, claiming awards, and promoting PRP therapy as a “miracle cure” for chronic joint conditions. The notice called upon them to furnish an explanation within ten days, failing which the matter would be placed before the ethics committee. Challenging the notice, the petitioners submitted that no copy of the complaint or supporting material was furnished to them and that the allegations were vague, based only on unspecified print media sources. Despite this, they submitted a detailed reply denying any misleading claims and clarifying that PRP therapy was never projected as a guaranteed cure, but only as a recognised treatment option with proper disclosure of risks, benefits, and alternatives. It was further submitted that a subsequent notice was issued on April 19, 2025, directing their appearance before the Ethics Committee, also suffered from procedural lapses, including failure to furnish the complaint, articles of charge, and list of documents and witnesses, as required under the Enquiry Rules. The petitioners contended that the proceedings are ex facie arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice, and contrary to the statutory framework governing disciplinary action against medical practitioners. They further alleged that the complaint was motivated and initiated at the instance of competing practitioners. Taking note of the submissions, the judge directed the respondents to obtain instructions regarding the present stage of the inquiry and the procedure proposed to be followed, and posted the matter for further hearing.
