HC scrutinises appointment of Shivadhar Reddy as DGP over ‘non-compliance’ with SC mandates

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Thursday initiated a significant hearing into a writ challenging the appointment of B Shivadhar Reddy, as the Director-General of Police.

A single bench of Justice Pulla Karthik heard the petition filed by advocate T Dhangopal Rao, which seeks a writ of quo warranto to quash the appointment order issued via GO 1339 on September 26. Rao contends that the government bypassed mandatory legal procedures established by the Supreme Court regarding the selection of a permanent police chief.

Appearing as a party-in-person, Rao argued that Reddy’s appointment is blatant violation of the SC directives in the landmark Prakash Singh vs. Union of India case. He emphasised that the apex court explicitly prohibits the appointment of temporary or “acting” DGPs, mandating instead that States must submit a panel of the three most senior eligible IPS officers to the Union Public Service Commission at least three months prior to a vacancy.

To support the claim, he produced information obtained through the Right to Information Act, which reportedly shows that the UPSC had not held any empanelment committee meeting for the current DGP post.

In response, Advocate-General A Sudarshan Reddy defended the State’s position, moving to dismiss the allegations of non-compliance. He told the court that a panel had indeed been previously submitted to the UPSC and argued that a Writ of Quo Warranto is not the appropriate legal vehicle for this challenge, suggesting that any perceived violations of its orders should be addressed through contempt proceedings in the SC.

He noted that the judicial landscape regarding police appointments has evolved with subsequent orders following the 2018 Prakash Singh judgment and requested additional time to file a comprehensive counter.

Justice Karthik, while declining the petitioner’s immediate plea to suspend the appointment order, underscored the gravity of the legal requirements, observing that SC orders are binding and must be implemented uniformly.

The court directed the A-G to obtain specific instructions on whether a panel of senior IPS officers was duly sent to the UPSC specifically for the appointment of the DGP. The proceedings were adjourned to December 22 for further instructions.

Min Seethakka appears in court over 2021 pandemic protest case

Minister for Women and Child Welfare Danasari Anasuya (Seethakka) appeared before the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate Court for Excise Cases, Nampally, on Thursday afternoon. She faces charges related to organising an ‘unauthorised’ demonstration during the Covid pandemic in 2021.

The legal proceedings stem from an incident in the Gandhinagar police limits during the height of the pandemic when strict lockdown measures were in place. The police registered a case against Seethakka for allegedly conducting a protest without permission, a violation of government order aimed at preventing public gatherings to curb the spread of corona.

The charges filed under the IPC include Section 188 for disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant, Section 269 for negligent acts likely to spread infection of a disease dangerous to life, and Section 270 for malignant acts likely to spread infection of a disease dangerous to life. These provisions were invoked to address violations of pandemic-related safety protocols that were strictly enforced during 2021.

Defence counsel Krishna Kumar Goud presented arguments on behalf of Seethakka, while Assistant Public Prosecutor Anita Deshmukh represented the government. After hearing the initial submissions from the counsels, the court adjourned the case to December 27, for further hearing.

The minister’s appearance in the court drew considerable attention, though she maintained a low profile and had minimal interaction with the media before leaving. Party leaders Sambasiva Rao, Arun Kumar and others accompanied her.

The case represents one of several legal matters filed against politicians during the pandemic when authorities took strict action against those violating lockdown norms and public health guidelines.