Petitioner, advocates apologise to Telangana High Court judge on SC direction

While hearing their petition seeking transfer of a case before the Telangana High Court, in which Telangana Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy was discharged of offences under SC/ST (POA) Act, the Supreme Court had on July 30 issued a show-cause notice for contempt of court to litigant, N Pedi Raju, and his lawyers, advocate-on-record Ritesh Patil and senior advocate Nitin Meshram.

On August 11, the Supreme Court had directed the registrar general of the Telangana High Court to reopen the matter before Justice Bhattacharya and directed the respondent to tender an apology to the judge within one week for the judge to consider the issue of acceptance of apology.

The Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai had remarked: “Under the Constitutional scheme, judges of high courts are in no way inferior to judges of the Supreme Court.”

The Telangana High Court on July 17 quashed a First Information Report (FIR) registered against Reddy in 2016, then an MLA of the Telugu Desam Party, under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The case arose from a complaint filed against him at Gachibowli police station by Raju, Director, Razole Constituency S C Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society Limited. In the complaint, Raju alleged that at Reddy’s behest, his brother, A Kondal Reddy, and others illegally trespassed onto the land in Gopanapally belonging to the society. He claimed they demolished a room of the society with an earthmover to occupy the land, and also abused the de facto complainant using casteist slurs.

At the time of its quashing by the high court, the case was in the trial stage before the special sessions judge for trial of cases under the SCs/STs POA Act, 1989, and the VII additional district sessions judge, Ranga Reddy district.

In 2020, Reddy approached the Telangana High Court to seek the quashing of the case. The high court found that Reddy was not present at the place at the time as claimed in the complaint, and viewed that the case against him is not maintainable.