Judiciary Concerned Over Social Media Speculations On Bail Plea

Legal circles said posts by bloggers and social media users were trying to predict the outcome of the bail application for Union minister’s son Sai Bhageerath even before the matter came to the holiday table.

According to sources, some members of the judiciary have viewed such comments with concern, especially posts that attribute motives to judges, including references to caste and regional background, or allege that they are close to influential people.

The concern arises in connection with a case registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act. Legal observers said such speculation could create public perception about judicial outcomes and affect confidence in the impartiality of the process.

They warned that attributing intent to judges and disseminating unsubstantiated allegations could undermine the credibility of the justice delivery system.

The issue has led to calls in legal circles to refrain from comments that could be seen as interfering with judicial proceedings or influencing public opinion on judicial matters.

HC restricts extraction of soil from lake to make bricks

The Telangana High Court has banned private parties from extracting soil from Peddacheruvu tank in Nalgonda district for commercial purposes.

Justice B. Vijay Sen Reddy passed the interim order while hearing a writ petition filed by Natwa Giridhar, a resident of Chintapalli mandal. The petition challenged permits granted to excavate and move 10,000 metric tons of soil from the tank located in Survey No. 508.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land, including that of the petitioner, was acquired for Chintapalli Reservoir under the Dindi project and the tank soil was used for related works.

The authorities allegedly allowed private individuals (Nakkala Vijayender Reddy and Erra Koteswara Rao) to remove land for brick production in violation of Mines Ministry regulations and government orders issued in 2015.

The petitioner also stated that the villagers were against the excavation but no action was taken.

The court asked the defendants to prepare detailed minutes explaining the permissions and sent the matter to July 1.

Pending further orders, the court prohibited private removal of soil from the tank.

HC maintains interim restriction on OM India Trust assets

The Telangana High Court dismissed the writ appeal filed by Mobilization Operation (OM) India Trust on the grounds that it was not maintainable as it arose from criminal proceedings.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G M Mohiuddin held that matters arising from criminal jurisdiction are not amenable to intra-court appeal under Article 15 of the Letters Patent.

The appeal challenged the interim order dated April 8, 2026 passed by a single judge in the writ petition filed by Gowripaga Albert. The petitioner had sought a direction from the Home Ministry to hand over the investigation into violations of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 and offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act by OM India Charity Group and its officers to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

The written petition also requested an interim measure preventing the organization from creating third party rights or disposing of its movable and immovable properties during the investigation. The single judge had issued notice and directed that the properties should not be attached.

OM India Trust’s counsel argued that the interim order was inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s earlier directions in proceedings in connection with FIR No. 22 of 2016, registered under Sections 409, 420 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 37 of the FCRA. It was claimed that the high court stopped the seizure of certain bank accounts, but did not restrict the disposition of immovable assets.

The Division Bench, however, held that the writ petition was inherently linked to a criminal investigation arising out of the same FIR and therefore fell within criminal jurisdiction. The court rejected the writ objection on grounds of sustainability, leaving the interim decision in effect.