Parental Care Is Also Daughters’ Duty: Telangana HC

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy made these remarks while hearing a petition filed by a 66-year-old woman from Suryapet district, who alleged negligence of her son and sought implementation of orders regarding return of property documents and welfare protection. The woman, who now resides with her daughter, told the court that local authorities had failed to implement an order passed under the Care and Welfare of Parents and Elderly Persons Act in December 2025. He claimed that despite instructions given by the Revenue Officer on police and administrative support, subsequent affidavits failed to yield any response.

Taking these allegations into consideration, the court directed the authorities in Suryapet to make a statement and remanded the matter for hearing on April 15.

During the hearing, Justice Reddy expressed serious concern over the increasing number of disputes reaching the court under the Elderly Act. He noted that the court was increasingly inundated with petitions filed by elderly parents seeking compensation against their own children, and expressed concern about the increasing number of cases in which parents sought to evict their children from their properties. He called it a “serious social problem” that reflects changing family dynamics.

“Eviction should ideally be the last step, but many people initially approach the court for this,” the judge said, emphasizing that family disputes must be resolved before resorting to litigation.

The judge stated that the responsibility of caring for elderly parents cannot be viewed unilaterally and emphasized that this responsibility belongs to all family members, regardless of gender. He cautioned that although property rights are often invoked, the corresponding duty to protect and support parents is equally important.

It also highlighted a broader social concern, noting that when parents have only daughters, the responsibility for care naturally falls to them. It also warned against situations where property claims are made without a willingness to support aging parents.

HC rejects help of disqualified sarpanch

The Telangana High Court has refused to grant relief to a disqualified sarpanch of Dhorapally village in Komaram Bheem Asifabad district, who was removed from office for not meeting the minimum age requirement at the time of filing for nomination.

Justice EV Venugopal was hearing a petition challenging the disqualification of Soyam Sameera by the revenue divisional officer (RDO) on the grounds that she had not completed 21 years of age at the time of contesting the election.

The petitioner argued that due procedure was not followed and questioned the authority of the RDO to act as divisional officer of the institution in a scheduled area since Dhorapally is within an approved institution area.

The government counsel stated that the RDO’s decision was based on records including the Secondary School Certificate marks mark and the bonafide certificate issued by the Secondary School Education Board.

Dismissing the writ petition, the court held that election disputes should be resolved through the legal mechanism of election petition and not through writ jurisdiction.

The court said matters related to eligibility and election results should be addressed before the competent court prescribed by law and the petitioner should be given the liberty to seek appropriate remedies.

Red Corner Notice on KVP: HC seeks status a few steps away from Center

The Telangana High Court on Wednesday directed the Union home and external affairs ministries to file detailed counter-affidavits on the Red Corner Notification issued by Interpol against former Rajya Sabha member KVP Ramachandra Rao.

Justice N. Tukaramji sought clarity from the Union government on the steps taken so far and the current status of the notification.

The Red Corner Notice was issued in 2014 following a request related to the US indictment in a titanium mining bribery case involving alleged irregularities in leases in undivided Andhra Pradesh. The proceedings were halted by the Supreme Court in 2014 and no further action was taken.

Senior advocate R N Kendidra Nath Reddy, appearing for Rao during the hearing, said the case was politically motivated and came up during the 2014 general elections. He argued that the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Union government, especially the home and external affairs ministries, and stated that no counter-affidavit has been made so far.

He also said that the power to issue, review or withdraw a Red Corner Notice lies with the Centre, in coordination with Interpol, while the CBI’s role is limited to follow-up action.

The lawyer argued that more than a decade had passed without progress, affecting the petitioner’s reputation and personal freedom. The court accepted the plea of ​​filing a criminal complaint against the State of Telangana as a respondent, stating that the petition was filed before the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh.

CBI special counsel T. Srujan Kumar Reddy opposed the plea stating that alternative remedies were available. He said objections could be made before the review committee in France and questioned the sustainability of the petition before the Supreme Court. He also referred to provisions under the Extradition Act.

The court expressed concern over the delay in submitting the responses of the Union ministries and directed them to submit detailed responses on the status of the Red Corner Notification.