Notice issued to govt for posting IPS officers in IAS cadre posts

The Telangana High Court on Monday issued notices to the government seeking an explanation for its decision to post IPS officers in IAS cadre positions. The single bench of Justice Surepally Nanda, hearing the petition, directed the Chief Secretary and the Principal Secretary (GAD) to file their responses by December 10, detailing reasons for such postings.

The writ was filed by Vadla Srikanth, an advocate and social activist from Tarnaka. His counsel Vijay Gopal argued that GO 1342, dated September 26, violates Central laws governing the allocation and functioning of IAS and IPS officers in State administration.

The petitioner pointed out that several IPS officers are currently holding IAS cadre posts, including, Stephen Ravindra, (Commissioner of Civil Supplies & Ex-Officio Principal Secretary), Shikha Goel, Director-General, Vigilance and Enforcement & Ex-Officio Principal Secretary, GAD and CV Anand, Special Chief Secretary (Home). Gopal argued that such postings are contrary to the statutory framework that differentiates the roles and responsibilities of the two all-India Services.

He cited the Telangana phone-tapping case as an example, noting that police officers investigate, report and ultimately submit findings to an IPS officer, highlighting the administrative implications of overlapping roles. Posting IPS officers to IAS-specific roles, the counsel argued, runs contrary to the fundamental structure of cadre allocation and undermines the specialised nature of the IAS. Appearing for the State, Rahul Reddy, special government pleader, sought time to file a counter- affidavit. After hearing the submissions, the court adjourned the case to December 10, directing the government to submit its counter before the next hearing.

Singapore nationals detained despite stay; HC criticises govt

The HC has expressed strong displeasure over State authorities for “overreach” and interference with the administration of justice after two Singapore-based accused were detained at Chennai international airport despite a stay order on criminal proceedings.

The criminal petition sought quashing of proceedings in CC 9437 of 2024 before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally. Earlier, on August 7, 2025, the HC had granted an interim stay of all further proceedings against A-6 and 7.

However, on November 20, counsel for the petitioners informed the court that the accused, Emani Satyanarayana and Emani Madhavi, holders of Singapore passports, were detained at Chennai airport due to a look out circular (LOC) issued pursuant to directions of the magistrate court. Shockingly, the magistrate had, on November 6 passed an order in CrMP No 3614 of 2025 recalling the NBWs against the accused, but imposing conditions requiring them to appear before the court on November 25, execute sureties, deposit passports, and not leave the country.

The HC single bench of Justice Jukanti Anil Kumar observed that such order could not have been passed when a stay on all further proceedings was in force. Calling the act an “impediment in the administration of justice” and “an impact on the majesty of the courts,” the bench questioned the assistant public prosecutor on how such order had been invoked despite the subsisting stay. The APP submitted that it may have been an inadvertent mistake. The court, however, remarked that such lapses dealt a blow to the rule of law and could not be condoned.

It emphasised that the State, being a party to the criminal proceedings, was deemed to be aware of the HC stay order. The subsequent LOC-based detention of the Singapore passport holders and the magistrate’s conditional order, the court said, amounted to clear overreach.

Referring to a recent Supreme Court ruling in WP (Crl.) 331 of 2025 (Order dated October 30, 2025), the HC highlighted the apex court’s warning to airport authorities to exercise sensitivity and caution before taking drastic steps like detention or arrest of international travellers, actions that could otherwise harm India’s international reputation and violate human rights guarantees. The court noted that India and Singapore are bound by a mutual legal assistance treaty, and any action against foreign nationals must be in compliance with existing legal frameworks.

Reiterating that no further proceedings could have been initiated once the stay was granted on August 7, 2025, the HC held that the orders invited before the magistrate were contrary to its directions. Justice Kumar made strong observations urging both sides to resolve the case amicably and avoid unnecessary litigation.

The judge stressed that even the police must strictly follow the judicial process, especially when cases involve foreign nationals. He cautioned the family members, noting: “We don’t want the eleven members of the family fighting with the girl. If they are interested, let the girl marry and go off. Let them not get involved in all these issues.”

Emphasising the woman’s autonomy, the court remarked that she has her own career and aspirations and cannot be forced to stay against her wishes. “If she is not interested in staying with you, let her go her own way. Why do you force her. Allegations are always there amongst both parties,” he said.

Referring to recent SC rulings, Justice Kumar pointed out that it, particularly Justice BV Nagarathna, had taken a stringent view in cases filed under Section 498A IPC, observing that complaints must clearly make out an offence even at the initial stage. Finding the case unsuitable for prolonged litigation, the court opined that this was “not a fit case to entertain such issues” and advised parties to settle the dispute amicably.

For further hearing, the case was adjourned for two weeks.