Telangana HC Hears KVP’s Plea Against Interpol Red Corner Notice In FBI-Linked Titanium Case

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Tuesday said Dr. He argued that the petition filed by Rao was not maintainable before the Indian courts. The agency stated that the notification was issued from Interpol’s headquarters in Paris. The CBI argued that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the notification was not issued by any Indian authority or institution.

Dr Rao filed the petition in the then Andhra Pradesh High Court in April 2014, where he sought directions restraining the authorities from taking further action under the notice and interim arrest warrant. On April 28, 2014, the Supreme Court had passed an interim order directing the additional director general of the CID not to take any further action based on the notification. The court had also indicted the Union home and external affairs ministries and the principal secretaries of the CBI as suo motu respondents.

In 2025, the case was listed several times but no representation was made by the petitioner Rao or his lawyer. The Supreme Court found that Rao was not inclined to pursue the case and dismissed his petition. However, on December 15, 2025, Dr. Rao filed a restoration petition and the court granted it.

On Tuesday, Justice N. Tukaramji heard the petition. CBI counsel T. Srujan Kumar Reddy stated that the agency is merely an enforcement authority and has no role in issuing the notification. He said the FBI had registered the case in a court in Northern Illinois alleging about $18.5 million in bribes were paid to central and state government officials to obtain necessary approvals for a titanium mining project.

He informed the court that the US District Court issued an arrest warrant on June 21, 2013, and Interpol subsequently issued a red corner warning. However, no action was taken due to the temporary restraining order issued by the Supreme Court in 2014. He argued that the petition itself was not maintainable before the Supreme Court.

Senior advisor RN Kendidranath Reddy and Ch. Satish Kumar, speaking on behalf of Dr Rao, maintained that only the CBI had filed a counter affidavit so far and argued that the Center should also take its stand before the court as it has to decide on jurisdiction. They submitted that the Botice was granted without seeking any explanation from the petitioner. They stated that the facts of the case were linked to undivided Andhra Pradesh and sought time to address the court on whether the Telangana High Court had jurisdiction to hear the petition or whether the matter should be transferred to the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

Taking cognizance of the allegations, the court granted two weeks for further arguments and directed the CBI to ascertain whether the red corner notice issued by Interpol was in force.

According to case records, the FBI had named six people as accused in a conspiracy case linked to a memorandum of understanding signed between the then Andhra Pradesh government and Switzerland-based Bautley Trade AG for titanium mining leases in the coastal districts of Visakhapatnam and Vizianagaram.

Among the defendants are DF Group chairman Dmitry Firtash, Hungarian businessman Andras Knopp, Indian-American Gajendralal, Sri Lankan citizen Periyaswamy Sundaralingam and Dr. Ramachandra Rao is featured. US investigators found that officials were bribed to obtain the necessary licenses and approvals for the project, and that Dr. He alleged that Rao misused his position as advisor to the then Prime Minister to facilitate the arrangement and gain personal benefits.

Telangana HC Grants 8-Week Exemption from Personal Appearance to MLC Teenmar Mallanna

The Telangana High Court on Tuesday granted eight-week exemption from personal appearance to MLC Chintapandu Naveen Kumar, popularly known as Teenmar Mallanna, in multiple criminal cases filed against him in different parts of the state. Accepting the relief, Justice N. Tukaramji directed the registry to submit it to the Chief Justice bench to be tagged along with the suo motu writ petition initiated by the Supreme Court in 2023 to monitor the status of pending criminal cases against MPs and MLAs. Kumar had approached the Supreme Court alleging that the cases registered against him were not transferred to the Special Court designated to hear cases against MPs and MLAs. He also requested the annulment of criminal cases filed against him.

CBI Submits 3rd Additional Chargesheet in YS Viveka Murder Case; Says No New Evidence or No New Defendants Found

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has informed the CBI court in Hyderabad that no new accused or new evidence has emerged in the final phase of investigation in the murder case of former minister YS Vivekananda Reddy.

In its third supplementary chargesheet filed before the CBI court, the agency said further investigation as per the court’s directions was limited to examining certain messages allegedly sent in the early hours of March 15, 2019, the day Vivekananda Reddy was killed.

Daughter of the deceased Dr. Following the petition filed by Suneetha Narreddy seeking further investigation, the Supreme Court had allowed the girl to approach the first instance court. Acting on the allegation, the CBI court on December 10, 2025, directed the agency to conduct further investigation, particularly regarding the messages allegedly sent between Kiran Yadav, brother of accused Sunil Yadav, and Arjun Reddy, relative of accused YS Bhaskar Reddy’s family, during the night covering March 14 and 15, 2019.

The CBI said it is examining mobile phone data and call detail records related to messages during the fresh investigation. Experts from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory analyzed the extracted mobile data and explained that the timing reflected in the phone data should be converted from the local device time to Coordinated Universal Time (UTC).

After such conversion and comparison with telecom records, investigators found that the two SMS messages sent from Kiran Yadav’s phone to Arjun Reddy were actually delivered around 7.12 am on March 15, 2019, and not at midnight on March 14-15. The messages were sent after the news of Vivekananda Reddy’s death became known, the agency said.

Dr Suneetha Reddy stated that the messages were sent at 1.42 am on March 15.

During the investigation, Kiran Yadav stated that he learned about the death while watching television in the morning and informed some YSRC social media activists, including Arjun Reddy, by sending messages saying “Vivekam sir passed away”. Based on analysis of digital evidence, statements of persons concerned and call recordings, the CBI concluded that the messages were sent the morning after news of the death and did not indicate any prior knowledge of the crime.