Plea Challenges Bar on Hiring Visually Impaired as Assistant Public Prosecutors
Hyderabad: A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court filed a written plea challenging the non-inclusion of visually impaired candidates as assistant public prosecutors in the State Prosecution Service. The panel, comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin, was hearing a writ plea filed by advocate Koppula Sravan Kumar questioning the validity of Rule 4(a) of the Telangana State Prosecution Rules, 1992 and paragraph 11(D)(ii) of the recruitment notification dated August 15 issued by the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board. The petitioner alleged that the rule arbitrarily excludes blind and low vision candidates. He argued that the exclusion was illegal, discriminatory and violated the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 and the Constitution. Relying on a Supreme Court decision that struck down similar disqualifications, he argued that a person who has earned a law degree and is capable of performing professional duties cannot be denied the opportunity simply because he is visually impaired. The petitioner argued that if persons with disabilities could serve as judges, there was no rational basis for barring them from serving as assistant prosecutors. The panel directed the state to seek instructions within three weeks. Pending disposal of the writ petition, the bench directed that the petitioner be allowed to apply for the post and made it clear that his application would depend on the outcome of the writ petition.
2. HC orders conditional release of rescued children
Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by six parents seeking the release of their minor sons from the Government Home for Boys in Saidabad. The judge was hearing the written defense submitted by Jihon Sekh and five others. The petitioners alleged that their children were rescued from a dangerous workplace by the Child Welfare Committee and were unlawfully detained at home. It was claimed that although we appealed to the authorities, the children were not handed over to their custody. It was reported that 11 children were rescued on behalf of the state, and those whose parents presented valid identification documents were released. It is alleged that the applicants did not submit such documents. Taking note of these arguments, Justice Madhavi Devi directed the authorities to verify the identity evidence submitted by the petitioners and if found satisfactory, immediately hand over the children to their parents.
3. Bullying case against businessman overturned
Justice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court quashed the plea against a businessman after finding that the pending cases were not related to any violation of public peace or order, making the continuation of the case unsustainable. The judge was hearing a writ plea by businessman Ayub Khan challenging the actions of the deputy commissioner of police in Hyderabad south district in instigating and continuing the fight against him. The applicant claimed that he was acquitted in 71 of the 74 cases filed against him, and that there was no violation of public order in the remaining 3 cases. The judge observed that two of the pending cases were related matters arising from a family dispute, while the third related to a civil dispute related to the case filed in March 2025. The judge quashed the noise page while giving the police the freedom to take action if they were involved in any incident that would require the reopening of the row page.
4. HC overruled the civil criminal case
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court quashed the criminal case against a businessman accused of cheating and criminal intimidation in connection with a Rs.41 lakh hand loan. The judge was dealing with a written defense submitted by Saley Mohammed seeking to annul the criminal investigation initiated against him. A complaint was filed by a businessman, who alleged that the accused took a loan of Rs 41 lakh for business purposes in 2019 and failed to repay it within the agreed period. The judge observed that the complainant and the accused had known each other since 2017 and all payments between 2019 and 2020 were made by cheque. The complaint was only filed in December 2021, leading to an “unexplained and excessive delay” in taking criminal action. Justice Sridevi noted that the charge sheet did not establish dishonesty or fraudulent intent at the inception of the transaction, which is an essential requirement for resorting to fraud under the IPC. The judge noted that no independent witnesses or bank officials were questioned to verify that the checks were cashed, and there were only vague allegations of threats without evidence to support the criminal intimidation charge. Citing the Supreme Court decision, the judge held that the case fell squarely into the category where the allegations, even taken on face value, did not constitute any offence. “On its face the allegations appear to be entirely civil in nature,” the judge said.
