Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 1 - 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 95Nominal IndexA.G. Biotech Laboratories (India) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 1 / 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 1Authority under Section 7A of EPF and MP Act-cum-Regional PF Commissioner-I, Regional Office, Patancheru, Sangareddy District and two Others vs. M/s Hartex Rubber Private Limited 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 2Mr. Kolichelimi Sai...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 1 - 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 95
Nominal Index
A.G. Biotech Laboratories (India) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 1 / 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 1
Authority under Section 7A of EPF and MP Act-cum-Regional PF Commissioner-I, Regional Office, Patancheru, Sangareddy District and two Others vs. M/s Hartex Rubber Private Limited 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 2
Mr. Kolichelimi Sai Rohit and five others v The State of Telangana 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 3
Muthineni Venakanna v State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Women and Child Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and eight others 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 4
Syed Ali Hussain Razvi v The Government of Telangana 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 5
X v/s X 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 6
Bipin Ramdas Ippakayal v The State of Telangana 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 7
Akram Ali Mohammad v Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 8
B. Narsimha Reddy, Medchal Malkajgiri District v The Commissioner, Thumukunta Municipality, Medchal Malkajgiri District and others 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 9
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v Mamilla Jangamma 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 10
Neha Singh v The State of Telangana 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 11
Sirigiri Shanker v The State of Telangana 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 12
Chandragiri Shiva Kumar v. State of Telangana 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 13
Dr. Hithendra v. State of Telangana 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 14
Mohd Samiuddin v. The State of Telangana 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 15
S.Satyvathi v. K.Venkateswarlu 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 16
Rudrabatla Santhosh Kumar and Ors v The State of Telangana 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 17
Dr. Karam Nikhil Kumar and seventeen others v The State of Telangana 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 18
Salguti Vishnuvardhan Reddy & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 19
Harshini Kishore v. The Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 20
Shri M. Appa Rao v. Union of India rep. by its Director General of Police (DG), Central Reserve Police Force & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 21
X v. Y 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 22
Bhashapaka Pragna Vardhini v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 23
Palivela Ravikumar & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 24
Om Prakash Sharma v. Directorate of Enforcement 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 25
M/s Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 26
Mangali Bhargav Kumar v. State of Telangana & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 27
X v. State of Telangana & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 28
Kalluru Soubhagya v. State of Telangana 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 29
Telangana Small Scale Industries Steel and Wooden Furniture Manufacturers Association & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 30
Konatham Dhilip Kumar @ Konatham Dileep Reddy & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Anr 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 31
Dr. Raghavender Siva Vijaya Chivukula v. Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 32
Durgam Venkatesh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 33
M/s. The Bottle Restaurant and Bar v. Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 34
Gade Innaiah @ Gade Inna Reddy v. State of Telangana 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 35
S.P. Kasim Peera v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 36
Sri Azmeera Kailas v. State of Telangana & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 37
CH. Muralidhar v. State of Telangana & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 38
Justice G. Sri Devi v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 39
Jangati Vijay v. State of Telangana & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 40
Gade Ramana Reddy v. State of Telangana & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 41
Rayapudi Siva Kumari & Ors. v. Nimmagadda Darahasa Lahari & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 42
Pawan Khera v/s The State of Telangana, 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 43
Shatabdi Manna v. State of Telangana 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 44
A. Sudhakar Reddy v. V. Ranganath 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 45
Balakrishna Mahadeo Tayade v. Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 46
Mukka Laxmi Bai M Lachavva v Neeraja Now and others 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 47
Telangana Hospitals and Nursing Homes Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 48
Late Padmashree Dr. B.S. Choubey Memorial Trust & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 49
The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. M/s. B. Ram Reddy Infra & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 50
Sri. Kalvakuntla Chandrashekar Rao vs. State of Telangana 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 51
Salman Mahmood v. State of Telangana & others 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 52
V. Anil Kumar & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors. and connected matters 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 53
Sanjay Agarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 54
The Singareni Collieries Company Limited & Ors. v. Madurakavi Kistaiah & Anr. and connected matters 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 55
Dr. M & another v. Union of India & another 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 56
The Singareni Collieries Company Limited & Ors. v. Madurakavi Kistaiah & Anr. and connected matters 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 55
Dr. M & another v. Union of India & another 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 56
L.S. Chowhan v. Union of India & 9 others 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 57
Jagannath v. The Registrar (Administration), High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad & another 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 58
Ravi & another v. Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 59
X v. Y 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 60
X v. Y 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 61
Pinninti Rachana Reddy & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 62
Ms. Venkata Aswini Reddy Koyya @ Ashu Reddy v. Mr. Yetimulla Satyanarayana Murthy & 32 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 63
Madisetti Samelu v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 64
Baqtawar Begum & 11 others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & 9 others 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 65
Girigalla Srinivas v. Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 66
The Warden & Correspondent, St. George's Grammar School & another v. State of Andhra Pradesh & others 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 67
Syed Arshed Ahmed @ Arshad Hashmi v. V. Srinivasa Rao 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 68
Sri Naralasetty Pavan Chandra Nagoor v. Sri Ravi Kumar Meruva 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 69
J.V. Nrupender Rao v. Regional P.F. Commissioner-II, Regional Office & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 70
Reshma v. State of A.P. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 71
Shaik Abdul Khader v. G. Anil Dutt Kamble 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 72
Nalamada Uthamkumar Reddy v. State of Telangana & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 73
K. Ganesh Rao v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 74
Bandi Sai Bageerath v/s State of Telangana 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 75
Dr. Pachipala Namratha @ Athaluri Namratha v. Union of India & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 76
S. Sanjeev v. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, TSNPDCL, OP, Nirmal District, Telangana State & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 77
XXXXX v. XXXXX 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 78
Lakakula Ayappa v. State of Telangana & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 79
Ganduri Krishna v. State of Telangana & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 80
Smt. K. Kalyani & Ors. v. The Managing Director & CDO, HRD Department & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 81
Sri Nandasu Laxmidas v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 82
Jogaram Lohar v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 83
Kanakati Naresh v. Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 84
Peddi Sudershan Reddy v. Union of India & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 85
Vijay Gopal v. Bar Council of India & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 86
Seeloju Shiva Kumar v. State of Telangana and another 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 87
Mr. Konda Hemanth Kumar v. State of Telangana & Anr. and batch 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 88
Munna Mohammed Ghouse & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 89
Dr. Goteti Ravindranath v. Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 90
J. Nagakumari v. State of Telangana 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 91
M/s. Divyanagar Plot Owners Welfare Association v. Mr. Gowtham Potru & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 93
Nagilla Srinivas v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 92
Varikota Ramgopal v. State of Telangana & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 94
Jyothi Estates v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 95
Judgements and Orders
Case Title: A.G. Biotech Laboratories (India) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 1 / 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 1
The Telangana High Court has held that income earned from the sale of tissue-cultured plants qualifies as agricultural income and is therefore exempt from income tax, though advanced scientific techniques are used in their cultivation.
The Bench of Justices P Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda heard a case where the assessee (appellant), who was engaged in the business of micropropagation of plants through tissue culture technology, claimed that the income from the same was exempt from tax as it was agricultural income.
Case Title: Authority under Section 7A of EPF and MP Act-cum-Regional PF Commissioner-I, Regional Office, Patancheru, Sangareddy District and two Others vs. M/s Hartex Rubber Private Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 2
The Telangana High Court has held that Quasi-Judicial authorities under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act cannot defend their own orders in appeal by stepping into the shoes of a party to the lis.
The respondent (in the appeal) is an 'Employer' of an Establishment under section 2(e) of the Act. Proceedings were initiated against the employer under section 7A by way of a notice dated 25.05.2022 determining the dues payable by the employer for the period from April, 2021 to November, 2021 and wages amounting to Rs.1,34,961 as balance.
Case Title: Mr. Kolichelimi Sai Rohit and five others v The State of Telangana
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 3
The High Court of Telangana has held that forest officials are empowered to investigate offences under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, but do not have authority to investigate offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). .
Justice J. Sreenivas Rao passed the order while partly allowing a writ petition filed seeking quashing of a Preliminary Offence Report (POR) registered by forest officials against the petitioners.
The writ petition was filed seeking quashing of Preliminary Offence Report dated 28 March 2022 registered by forest authorities of Nagarkurnool District, for alleged offences under Sections 27 and 56 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (WLP Act) and Sections 351 read with 332 and 333 of the IPC.
Case Title: Muthineni Venakanna v State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Women and Child Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and eight others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 4
The High Court of Telangana, in a recent judgment, rejected a plea filed by a man seeking restoration of custody of a minor girl child who had been taken from his care after police registered a case alleging illegal adoption and child trafficking. The Court held that custody could not be granted where the child was procured through a process not recognised by law, and that an emotional bond between the child and the adoptive parents cannot be a ground to regularise an illegal adoption.
Justice T. Madhavi Devi dismissed the writ petition, observing that granting relief in such cases would amount to legitimising illegal adoptions and would encourage trafficking of children.
Case Title: Syed Ali Hussain Razvi v The Government of Telangana
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 5
The High Court of Telangana has declined to grant relief to a man who claimed Indian citizenship by birth and sought directions restraining the police and immigration authorities from compelling him to apply for a Long Term Visa (LTV).
The Court held that documents such as Aadhaar card, voter ID, PAN card, driving licence and educational certificates cannot, by themselves, establish citizenship, particularly where official records indicate foreign nationality and statutory verification is ongoing.
Case Title: X v/s X
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 6
The High Court of Telangana, in a recent judgement, declared the marriage between a tribal woman and an SC man to be void, holding that a marriage registered under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, “cannot be sustained in law if one of the parties is not governed by the Act”.
A Division Bench of Justice K. Lakshman and Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy allowed an appeal filed by a Schedule Tribe woman and set aside a decree passed by the Family Court that had declined to declare the marriage void.
Case Title: Bipin Ramdas Ippakayal v The State of Telangana
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 7
The High Court of Telangana, in a recent judgement, has directed the State and Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) to formulate a comprehensive policy regulating the sale and consumption of non-vegetarian and meat products within a 100 m radius of places of worship, educational institutions or hospitals within four weeks.
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy passed the directions while disposing of a writ petition filed by a restaurateur, contending harassment by the police and municipal authorities, who were thereby exercising undue interference in the renovation works at his premises.
Case Title: Akram Ali Mohammad v Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 8
The Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by an Urdu language journalist challenging a communication issued by the Regional Passport Authority following the revocation of his passport, holding that “renewal of passport is not automatic”, thus taking note of the material relating to activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India that had been placed on record.
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka refused to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution, observing that in matters involving public interest and national security, there are exceptions to natural principles, and they may not apply.
The petitioner, an Urdu-language journalist associated with newspapers and digital media platforms, has amassed over 1.5 million subscribers. He was originally issued a passport in 2008, which expired in August 2018, and subsequently, on applying for renewal, a new passport was issued to him.
Mere Apprehension Of Adverse Order Not Ground To Transfer Suit U/S 24 CPC: Telangana High Court
Case Title: B. Narsimha Reddy, Medchal Malkajgiri District v The Commissioner, Thumukunta Municipality, Medchal Malkajgiri District and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 9
The Telangana High Court has rejected a transfer petition seeking transfer of a civil suit from the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal, reiterating that mere apprehension of an adverse order is not a ground for transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Rejecting allegations of influence, the Court observed that it is “almost impossible” for presiding officers in civil courts to identify parties in pending suits so as to avoid being photographed with them at public events, and that such circumstances cannot give rise to a presumption of bias.
Justice Renuka Yara dismissed the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition, holding that the grounds urged by the petitioner did not justify the exercise of the Court's power to transfer the suit.
The transfer petition arose out of a suit pending before the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District. The petitioner sought transfer of the suit on the ground that he apprehended that he would not receive a fair trial before the said court.
Case Title: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v Mamilla Jangamma
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 10
The Telangana High Court, in a recent judgment, held that a mere plea of head-on collision does not automatically establish contributory negligence in a motor accident claim.
Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy, while considering an appeal filed by the insurance company against an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad, rejected the insurer's challenge to the finding of negligence and quantum of compensation, and partly allowed the appeal by reducing the rate of interest from 9% per annum to 7.5% per annum.
The claim petition arose out of an accident dated 23.03.2015. The deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle when a DCM vehicle dashed against it. He sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to his injuries the following day while undergoing treatment. A criminal case under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the driver of the DCM vehicle.
Case Title: Neha Singh v The State of Telangana
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 11
The Telangana High Court, in a recent judgment, has quashed criminal proceedings against a woman arrayed as Accused No.2 in a criminal complaint, reiterating that a girlfriend cannot be construed as a “relative” of the man within the meaning of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice Tirumala Devi Eada, while considering a petition seeking quashing of proceedings in a complaint case pending before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, further found that the allegations in the complaint did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences under 498A, 354D,427 and 506 IPC.
Case Title: Sirigiri Shanker v The State of Telangana
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 12
The Telangana High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against two accused persons charged with cheating and violation of the Essential Commodities Act, holding that, in the absence of any allegation that beneficiaries were deceptively induced to part with Public Distribution System (PDS) rice, the continuation of prosecution would amount to abuse of process of law.
Reiterating the above observation, Justice J. Sreenivas Rao allowed a criminal petition seeking quashing of proceedings pending before the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hanumakonda, insofar as it concerned the accused Nos. 3 and 6.
Case Title: Chandragiri Shiva Kumar v. State of Telangana
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 13
The Telangana High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against the operators of a hookah lounge booked for alleged offences under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 20(2) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (COTPA).
Justice Tirumala Devi Eada, while holding that the allegations in the complaint did not disclose a violation of the statutory provisions, allowed a criminal petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking the quashing of proceedings in a crime registered by the Narsingi Police Station, Ranga Reddy District.
Case Title: Dr. Hithendra v. State of Telangana
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 14
The Telangana High Court has held that a Homoeopathy medical practitioner cannot prescribe Allopathy medicines, reiterating the position laid down by the Constitution Bench in Dr Mukhtiar Chand v. State of Punjab. At the same time, the Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against such a practitioner on the ground that the statutory requirement under Section 54 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 (NMCA) was not complied with.
Justice Tirumala Devi Eada was dealing with a Criminal Petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking quashing of proceedings of a Crime registered by Sadasivpet Police Station, Sangareddy District.
"Consensual Relationship, No Intention To Prosecute": Telangana High Court Quashes FIR U/S 69 BNS
Case Title: Mohd Samiuddin v. The State of Telangana
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 15
The Telangana High Court, in a recent judgement, has quashed criminal proceedings registered under Sections 69 and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), observing that continuation of the case would amount to abuse of process of law where the de facto complainant stated that she did not intend to prosecute the accused and had amicably resolved the dispute.
Justice Tirumala Devi Eada was dealing with a Criminal Petition filed by the accused seeking quashing of proceedings in a crime case registered at Zaheerabad Town Police Station, Sangareddy District.
Case Title: S.Satyvathi v. K.Venkateswarlu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 16
The Telangana High Court has set aside an order of the appellate court refusing to admit additional evidence in a cheque dishonour appeal, reiterating the principle that the power under Section 391 CrPC is to be exercised only when additional evidence is necessary to secure the ends of justice and to prevent failure of justice.
Justice Tirumala Devi Eada allowed the Criminal Petition and set aside the order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the III Additional District Judge, L.B. Nagar.
The de facto complainant had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner. The trial court convicted the petitioner in 2017. Aggrieved thereby, she preferred an appeal, which is pending.
Case Title: Rudrabatla Santhosh Kumar and Ors v The State of Telangana
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 17
The Telangana High Court has partly allowed a petition seeking quashing of proceedings in a case registered under Section 108 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), holding that that continuation of proceedings against accused Nos.4 to 13 would amount to abuse of process of law, considering the victim's suicide note, that did not attribute any fault to them. The Court, however, refused to quash proceedings against accused Nos.1 to 3, who found direct mention in the suicide note.
Justice Tirumala Devi Eada was dealing with a Criminal Petition filed by accused Nos.1 to 13 seeking quashing of Crime on the file of Neelwai Police Station, Ramagundam.
According to the prosecution, the petitioners abetted the suicide of the victim by harassing him through a false complaint alleging that he had outraged the modesty of a woman. It was alleged that, unable to bear the humiliation, the victim committed suicide.
Case Title: Dr. Karam Nikhil Kumar and seventeen others v The State of Telangana
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 18
The Telangana High Court has held that in-service doctors who became eligible for admission to Post Graduate Medical Degree Courses after reduction of the NEET-PG percentile should be permitted to exercise web options in the mop-up counselling for stray vacancies, if such counselling is reopened by the University.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Apresh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin disposed of a writ petition filed by the petitioner- Surgeon and 17 other Civil Assistant Surgeons, observing that in the event the University issues notification for exercising web options for mop-up counselling for stray vacancies, the petitioners should be allowed to participate in the process. The Court clarified that the “question of law was left open to be raised in an appropriate proceeding”.
Case Title: Salguti Vishnuvardhan Reddy & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 19
The Telangana High Court has held that merely mentioning the word “consideration” instead of “market value” in a partition deed cannot by itself justify treating the instrument as a conveyance and demanding additional stamp duty.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Sarath observed that the registering authority cannot demand deficit stamp duty merely on the basis of such wording where there is no actual transfer of consideration among co-owners.
Case Title: Harshini Kishore v. The Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 20
The Telangana High Court permitted an MBBS student to approach the grievance redressal committee of Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences, for re-verification of her answer sheet after she failed the Human Anatomy paper by one mark.
Justice Surepalli Nanda granted liberty to the student to approach the University's grievance mechanism for redressal.
The Court observed: “The writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Grievance Committee appointed by the respondent No.1–University by submitting representation with request to re-verify the petitioner's answer sheets in the subject of Human Anatomy… on any working day within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, by paying the requisite fee as per the rules.”
Case Title: Shri M. Appa Rao v. Union of India rep. by its Director General of Police (DG), Central Reserve Police Force & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 21
The Telangana High Court has held that the father of a CRPF constable who went missing while undergoing training cannot be denied service and pensionary benefits merely because he did not separately lodge a missing complaint.
In doing so the Court quashed the constable's ex parte removal from service, holding that the force could not evade responsibility after its own authorities had reported him missing.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin observed:
“The petitioner's son was not in the custody of the petitioner - father when he went missing. He was under the control and command of the Commanding Officer, Group Centre, CRPF, Jharodakalan, New Delhi in effect in his regimental family. In such a case, when even the warrant of arrest could not be executed against the Constable, as he could not be found at his native place, the ex-parte departmental proceedings in his absence leading to his removal from service could hardly justify the charges alleged against him… The totality of facts and circumstances borne out from record… persuade us to hold that the insistence upon lodging of an FIR by the petitioner for his missing son would not be mandatory for consideration of the claim for service benefits to which his legal heirs or nominees are entitled as per law.”
Case title: X v. Y
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 22
The Telangana High Court has set aside a trial court order directing DNA test of a minor child to determine paternity in a matrimonial dispute, holding that a child cannot be used as "pawn" to establish allegations of adultery against the mother wherein the husband can prove the allegation without sacrificing the child's identity.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Renuka Yara observed that the question of directing DNA testing must be assessed “through the prism of the child” and not merely through the interests of the contesting spouses. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia, the Court quoted:
“DNA tests of children born during the subsistence of valid marriage may be directed, only when there is sufficient prima-facie material to dislodge the presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act. Further, if no plea has been raised has to non-access in order to rebut the presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act a DNA test may not be directed… The child cannot be used as a pawn to show that the mother of the child was living in adultery. It is always open to the respondent husband to prove by other evidence the adulterous conduct of the wife, but the child's right to identity should not be allowed to be sacrificed… To enable one of the parties to the marriage to have the benefit of fair trial, the Court cannot sacrifice the rights and best interests of a third party to the lis, namely, the child.”
Case Title: Bhashapaka Pragna Vardhini v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 23
The Telangana High Court has held that educational institutions cannot withhold original academic certificates of students on the ground of non-payment of fees, observing that such certificates are the property of the student and cannot be retained as leverage to recover dues.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Surepalli Nanda observed:
“The respondent no. 4 [university] cannot withhold the petitioner's original educational certificates (documents including the Marks Sheet and Degree Certificate) under any pretext. There is no lien on the certificate of the students since the certificate of the student is his/her property. This Court opines that the right of students to obtain their Certificates from one institution to join another institution cannot be denied by the concerned authorities merely because the tuition fee is due and if any amount is due from the petitioner towards such fees, the proper course available to the respondents is to initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery before the competent Court and coercive tactics cannot be adopted by the respondents to make the petitioner pay the tuition fee.”
Case Title: Palivela Ravikumar & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 24
The Telangana High Court has held that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely because the police registered a case under the BNS 2023, even though the alleged offence occurred prior to the enactment of the new criminal law framework.
The BNS came into force from July 1, 2024 replace the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Court clarified that such an error does not vitiate the proceedings, as the trial court can examine the allegations and frame appropriate charges under the correct law.
Case Title: Om Prakash Sharma v. Directorate of Enforcement
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 25
Quashing a money laundering case against a chartered accountant and a businessman accused of assisting in layering of funds in an alleged bank fraud case, the Telangana High Court observed that prosecution under PMLA cannot be sustained based on uncorroborated statements of co-accused.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice E.V. Venugopal while referring to Supreme Court judgments observed:
"When the facts and circumstances of the case on hand are tested on the touchstone of the above proposition of law raid down by the Hon'ble supreme court, the same squarely applies to the case of the petitioners entitling them for discharge from the present criminal prosecution as basing on the uncorroborated statements of co-accused recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, without any independent documentary or electronic evidence establishing a prior meeting of minds, control over funds, ownership or operation of accounts, or enjoyment of proceeds of crime the petitioners are arrayed as accused"
Case Title: M/s Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 26
The Telangana High Court refused to interfere with process initiated by labour authorities to conduct a secret ballot election for determining the majority representative trade union, holding that such a process is integral to industrial democracy promoting democratic representation for workmen.
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka, dismissing the writ petition filed by Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd., observed:
“The apprehension expressed by petitioner that conduct of elections would disturb industrial peace, adversely affect day-to-day operations, impede implementation of the resolution plan approved by the National Company Law Tribunal, or jeopardize the revival of the unit is speculative and unsupported by any tangible material. On the contrary, the very object of the Code of Discipline and the process of secret ballot election is to promote orderly industrial relations, provide a legitimate and democratic representative mechanism for workmen, and ensure industrial harmony.”
Case Title: Mangali Bhargav Kumar v. State of Telangana & Anr.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 27
The Telangana High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a student accused of creating and uploading "fake" videos about a contractor and his family on YouTube after the latter allegedly failed to construct the petitioner's house within the stipulated time.
In doing so the court held that the allegations in the complaint did not attract offences under Section 420 IPC (cheating) or Section 66D (impersonation) of IT Act.
Justice Tirumala Devi Eada observed that continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process of law.
The Court, quoting the Supreme Court judgement in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, noted that an FIR may be quashed when “the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.”
Case Title: X v. State of Telangana & Anr.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 28
Quashing an FIR against a man accused of rape on the pretext of marriage, the Telangana High Court noted that the complainant and the accused were in a consensual relationship for five years and it cannot be alleged that accused had dishonest intention of luring the complainant into a sexual relationship and deceiving her.
Justice Tirumala Devi Eada, allowing the criminal petition, observed:
“The allegations would reveal that there was consensual relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. However, there is an alleged promise of marriage. The said promise of marriage is alleged to have been made five years prior to lodging of complaint. According to the contents of the complaint also, the physical relationship with the petitioner continued over a period of five years. The de facto complainant is aged 26 years as on the date of complaint, which means that when she entered into the relationship with the petitioner, she was 21 years old and was a working woman. So, she is well aware of the consequences and further, she mentioned in the complaint that when she conceived two years prior to lodging of the complaint, both of them decided to go for abortion which discloses that the de facto complainant also was willing for abortion. lt is reiterated that the de facto complainant was in a physical relationship with the petitioner for a period of five years.”
Case title: Kalluru Soubhagya v. State of Telangana
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 29
The Telangana High Court has granted bail to a woman accused in a prostitution case, holding that mere presence at the alleged brothel house without independent material demonstrating active involvement, is insufficient to justify continued detention.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Sujana, allowing the criminal petition, observed:
“Having considered the submissions of both sides and upon perusal of the material available on record, the allegation against the petitioner is that she acted as a sub-organizer in the alleged prostitution activity along with the main accused. However, at this stage there is no specific material to show that the petitioner owned the premises or was running the brothel house. The presence of petitioner at the premises alone, without any independent material showing her active role in managing the alleged illegal activity, requires to be examined during trial"
Case title: Telangana Small Scale Industries Steel and Wooden Furniture Manufacturers Association & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 30
The Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging supplementary agreements extending time for execution of a public tender, holding that non-participating bidders lack locus and that contractual extension of time is allowed if it is permitted under the tender conditions.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Surepalli Nanda observed:
"A bare perusal of the tender document, in particular point No.4 of the bid document clearly indicates that the validity of tender period is five (5) years and 45 days and clause 25 and 26 of the tender document, dated 26.04.2025 (referred to and extracted above) refers to delays and extension of time and clause 26 provides for levy of liquidated damages and therefore, it is settled law that when there is an extension clause and liquidated damages, time will not be the essence of the contract as held at Para 11, 32 and 35 of the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2022) 2 SCC 382 in Welspun Speciality Solutions Limited v. ONGC".
Case Title: Konatham Dhilip Kumar @ Konatham Dileep Reddy & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Anr
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 31
The Telangana High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against two individuals accused of circulating “fake news” on social media, holding that mere forwarding of content, without the requisite intent, does not attract offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Sujana observed:
“Even assuming for a moment that the petitioners had circulated or forwarded such content, the essential ingredients of Sections 353(1)(c) and 353(2) of BNS are not attracted… The alleged posts, even if assumed to be made by the petitioners, do not satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 353 BNS. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of process of law.”
Case Title: Dr. Raghavender Siva Vijaya Chivukula v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 32
The Telangana High Court has held that in view of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act and governing precedent, a person facing pending criminal proceedings must first obtain a no-objection certificate (NOC) from the trial court for passport reissuance/renewal. Only thereafter can the passport authority consider the request, and such NOC does not by itself amount to permission to travel abroad.
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka quoted from the Division Bench judgment in W.A. No. 194 of 2026, which had referred to Mahesh Kumar Agarwal and Nidhi Agarwal, as follows:
“In the light of the principle laid down… we are of the considered view that the appellant should make an application for seeking NOC from the concerned trial courts where criminal cases are pending against him. It is upon issuance of NOC that the appellant should file an application for renewal of the passport… Otherwise… issuance for a shorter period, ordinarily one year, in appropriate cases.”
Case Title: Durgam Venkatesh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 33
The Telangana High Court has upheld the validity of the digital double-valuation system used in postgraduate medical examinations, holding that courts cannot interfere with academic evaluation merely on allegations of discrepancies in marks.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Renuka Yara observed:
“This Court lacks expertise in said arena… It is the domain of the valuators… to value the answer scripts… In any case, to avoid arbitrariness… whenever there is a difference of 15% or more, said paper is sent for valuation by a third valuator and therefore, the scope for arbitrariness is reduced.”
Case Title: M/s. The Bottle Restaurant and Bar v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 34
The Telangana High Court has held that freezing a bank account without establishing a prima facie nexus to a cognizable offence and without following due process amounts to a violation of fundamental rights, directing partial defreezing of a restaurant's bank account.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice E.V. Venugopal observed:
“The freezing of a citizen's bank account, in the absence of any cogent reasons and without establishing even a prima facie nexus of such account with the commission of any cognizable offence, amounts to a grave and unwarranted intrusion into the fundamental rights… Such an action… not only cripples the financial autonomy of an individual but also directly impinges upon the right to life… and the freedom to carry on trade… The power to interdict the operation of a bank account is an exceptional one… Any freezing order passed dehors such safeguards… cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.”
Case Title: Gade Innaiah @ Gade Inna Reddy v. State of Telangana
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 35
The Telangana High Court has granted one-day interim (escort) bail to an accused in an NIA case to enable him to perform the 15th day funeral rites of his father, holding that the trial court failed to consider material placed on record regarding customary ceremonies by refusing extension of interim bail.
A Division Bench of Justice K. Lakshman and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao observed:
“The appellant… specifically contended that with regard to the performance of 15th day ceremony… the rituals to perform on the said date… are not considered by the learned Designated Court… The appellant also filed Memorial Service Card… Therefore, we are inclined to grant interim bail… for a period of one day i.e., 14.03.2026.”
Case Title: S.P. Kasim Peera v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 36
The Telangana High Court has held that posts of Police Constable, Head Constable and Assistant Reserve Sub-Inspector in the Special Police Battalions are State cadre posts governed under Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order 1975.
It further held that promotions to such non-ministerial posts cannot be governed by battalion-wise (local) seniority under the Andhra Pradesh Police (Special Police Battalions) Subordinate Service Rules1997.
Case Title: Sri Azmeera Kailas v. State of Telangana & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 37
The Telangana High Court refused to quash disproportionate assets case against a public servant, holding that mere delay in grant of sanction by itself is not enough to abort a corruption case.
This, when the Anti-Corruption Bureau had consistently pursued sanction and the accused had not invoked available remedies at the relevant time.
Referring to Supreme Court's decision in Vijay Rajmohan v CBI (2023) where it was held that that the sanctioning authority is required to grant sanction within 3 months along with an additional period of 1 month and upon expiry the complainant, accused or victim is entitled to approach the appropriate Writ Court to seek appropriate remedies, Justice Juvvadi Sridevi observed:
"In the instant case, the petitioner failed to challenge the legality of the delay, neither before the trial Court nor before the High Court to seek necessary directions. This inaction constitutes a neglect of the remedy explicitly made available under law and a failure to utilize the statutory and judicial safeguards designed to address such delays. While the judgment in Vijay Rajmohan's case was expressly relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, no attempt was made to invoke the remedies available, thereby undermining the petitioner's reliance on the delay in granting sanction. Hence, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, mere non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of granting sanction within four (4) months cannot, by itself, constitute a ground to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. The delay, in the absence of any other substantive illegality, does not entitle the petitioner to the relief claimed.”
Case Title: CH. Muralidhar v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 38
Holding that a college cannot retain a student's original academic certificates as a means of enforcing any monetary claim, the Telangana High Court has directed a private engineering college to forthwith return the original certificates of a student who had discontinued his B.Tech. course.
The court was hearing an engineering student's plea who had a quarrel with certain senior students wherein the petitioner alleged he was physically attacked by his seniors; subsequently one of the senior students had committed suicide pursuant to which a case was lodged against the petitioner and after which he had discontinued his studies.
Telangana High Court Directs Old Pension Scheme Benefits For Retired HC Judge Within 8 Weeks
Case Title: Justice G. Sri Devi v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 39
The Telangana High Court has asked the concerned authorities to expeditiously implement benefits of old pension scheme entitlement to retired High Court judge Justice G Sri Devi within 8 weeks.
In doing so the court disposed of the judge's plea after noting the submission of the authorities that they had granted sanction to her entitlement to pension under the Old Pension Scheme.
A Division Bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda observed:
“The learned ASGI, assisted by the learned counsel appearing for the Accountant General, today produced order dated 13.03.2026 issued to the Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs (Department of Justice), New Delhi granting approval and sanction so far as the pension payable to the petitioner under the Old Pension Scheme is 5 concerned and also granting calculation of pension which the petitioner would be entitled for, including all the arrears the petitioner would be entitled for from the date of her superannuation till date. The learned ASGI further submitted that since the present order from the office of the Accountant General had been issued by speed post on 13.03.2026, it is only a matter of time for the department to actually implement the same and in all probability, the same would be executed at the earliest and that considering the claim of the petitioner, it would expedited on priority basis.”
Case Title: Jangati Vijay v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 40
The Telangana High Court has reiterated that police officers have no power to detain or seize vehicles on the ground that the person driving was found in an intoxicated condition, and in case no one other than the intoxicated driver is there the police must inform the nearest relative or friend to take back the custody of the vehicle.
Justice E.V. Venugopal in his order referred to a coordinate bench's decision in a 2021 petition (W.P. No.1647 of 2021) where detailed guidelines were passed on how the police must deal with vehicles involved in drunk driving cases.
Case Title: Gade Ramana Reddy v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 41
The Telangana High Court dismissed a PIL challenging ward-wise reservation notifications issued for ' 2nd Ordinary Elections to Municipalities and Municipal Corporations 2026', holding that the allegation that reservation in several municipalities ranged between 70% and 90% was not backed by “comprehensive or verified data.”
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin observed:
"It is to be noted that the foundation of the present case rests upon the assertion that reservation in several municipalities ranges between 70% and 90% However, upon examination of the very District Gazette Notifications annexed by the petitioner, the data does not substantiate the sweeping allegation in the manner projected. The petitioner has not furnished a comprehensive tabulation of all municipalities to support the generalized claim. When the factual premise itself racks precision and demonstrable support, the claim of large-scale public injury becomes tenuous"
Telangana High Court Upholds Order Directing Inquiry Into 'Forged' Signatures On Vakalatnama
Case Title: Rayapudi Siva Kumari & Ors. v. Nimmagadda Darahasa Lahari & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 42
The Telangana High Court has upheld a single judge's order directing inquiry under Section 340 CrPC after finding a prima facie case that signatures of various flat-owners on the Vakalatnama filed in the writ petition–seeking demolition of alleged illegal construction, had been forged.
Section 340 CrPC allows a Court to deal with offences affecting the administration of justice such as perjury, when such offences have been committed in relation to proceedings before the Court. The provision mandates a prior complaint and allows the Court to conduct a preliminary inquiry and record a finding that it is expedient in the interests of justice to inquire into such an offence.
Case Title: Pawan Khera v/s The State of Telangana
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 43
The Telangana High Court on Friday (April 10) granted anticipatory bail for one week to Congress leader Pawan Khera in connection with an FIR filed by Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma's wife Riniki Bhuyan Sharma, amid allegations related to her holding multiple passports.
Justice K Sujana while pronouncing the order said, "The petitioner is granted time time for one week to file an application before the concerned court...relief to petitioner for one week with conditions".
Case Title: Shatabdi Manna v. State of Telangana
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 44
Granting bail to a woman accused in an NDPS case involving alleged seizure of 63 grams of contraband, the Telangana High Court held that delay in producing an accused before the Magistrate beyond 24 hours of arrest would violate Article 22(2) of the Constitution, and that such illegality cannot be cured by a later remand order.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Sujana observed:
“As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), that when the time of arrest and production of the accused before the Magistrate is considered and the production is beyond 24 hours, such detention would be violative of Article 22(2) of the Constitution, and the subsequent remand would not cure the illegality, and the accused would be entitled to be released on that ground. In view of the above settled legal position and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it fit to grant bail to the petitioner…”
Case Title: A. Sudhakar Reddy v. V. Ranganath
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 45
The Telangana High Court has held the Commissioner of Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency (HYDRAA) guilty of contempt in regard to an earlier order wherein the body was permitted to undertake pre-monsoon work without affecting a party's interest over a disputed land area.
The court found that the body had created structures on the land in question including redevelopment of a lake, and directed it to remove all signages, structures and markers indicating HYDRAA's ownership or control over the land.
Case Title: Balakrishna Mahadeo Tayade v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 46
The Telangana High Court has upheld the removal of a CRPF cook from service on charges of contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage, holding that the departmental authorities had acted on sufficient material and that the petitioner had been given adequate opportunity in the enquiry.
Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao observed:
“The authorities finally came to a conclusion that the petitioner has committed grave misconduct which attracts the provision u/s 11 of the CRPF Act, 1949, r/w Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. It is not like all other departments, it is a disciplinary Force; each and every small mistake is taken seriously. At this stage, when the first wife, along with her complaint, has produced the marriage certificate, wedding invitation card, and photographs, these pieces of evidence cannot be brushed aside or ignored.”
Case Title: Mukka Laxmi Bai M Lachavva v Neeraja Now and others
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 47
The Telangana High Court has held that a widow's right to claim compensation for the death of her husband in a motor accident does not stand extinguished merely because she remarried during the pendency of the claim proceedings.
The court was hearing a woman's plea challenging a portion of the compensation granted by the Motor Accident Tribunal to her daughter-in-law (who had eventually remarried), on account of her son's death in an accident.
Case Title: Telangana Hospitals and Nursing Homes Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 48
The Telangana High Court has upheld the validity of Guideline No.14 of Central Pollution Control Board's (CPCB) Guidelines for Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities, 2025 and the consequential Telangana Pollution Control Board (TGPCB) circular adopting a “per bed per day” user-charge model for bedded hospitals.
In doing so the court held that the classification between bedded and non-bedded healthcare facilities is founded on an intelligible differentia and bears a rational nexus with the object of efficient and sustainable biomedical waste management.
Payment Of Cheque Amount Before First Hearing Warrants Quashing Of NI Act Case: Telangana High Court
Case Title: Late Padmashree Dr. B.S. Choubey Memorial Trust & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 49
The Telangana High Court has quashed three cheque dishonour cases against a trust and its office-bearers, observing that the trust had paid the entire cheque amount before the first date of hearing and so continuation of the prosecutions would amount to abuse of process of law.
Justice Tirumala Devi Eada observed:
“It is pertinent to observe in this regard that the objective of the N.I. Act is to safeguard the interest of the business community, where under several transactions occur by giving and taking cheques and in case of their default in payment, the party who acts upon the said promise of payment should not be put to loss. In the present case, admittedly, the amounts covered under the cheques are already paid. The only contention of learned counsel for respondent No.2 is with regard to payment of interest/fine/ compensation".
Case Name: The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. M/s. B. Ram Reddy Infra & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 50
The Telangana High Court has held that in commercial suits, the 120-day period for filing defendant's written statement under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) begins from the date of service of summons along with the plaint, and not from the later date when annexed documents are furnished to the defendant.
Holding that the Commercial Court had rightly forfeited the defendants' right to file written statements after expiry of the statutory period, a Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar observed:
“The discussion in the above paragraphs leads us to the inevitable view that the amended second proviso to Order V Rule 1 and the amended proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 read with Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC cast a mandate on the defendant to file its Written Statement within 30 days from the date of service of summons on that defendant and thereafter within 90 days (i.e., a total of 120 days) from the date of service of summons. The gates stand closed after the period of 120 days since the right to file a Written Statement stands forfeited. The Court is also divested of its power to extend the time beyond 120 days for filing of the Written Statement for suits involving a commercial dispute.
Case Title: Sri. Kalvakuntla Chandrashekar Rao vs. State of Telangana
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 51
The Telangana High Court on Wednesday (April 22) partly allowed pleas filed by former chief minister and BRS head K Chandrashekar Rao, former irrigation minister T. Harish Rao and others challenging the Inquiry Commission Report over alleged irregularities into the Kaleshwaram project.
In doing so the court held that those findings against the petitioners which have been rendered in violation of safeguards provided under Section 8(B) of Commissions of Inquiry Act, shall not be acted upon. For context, Section 8B mandates that notice be issued to any individual, likely to be affected by the findings on the report, documents be served on them and they be given a chance to defend themselves and cross-examine the witnesses. The petitioners herein are K Chandrashekar Rao(KCR) , T. Harish Rao (THR) and retired IAS officer Shailendra Kumar Joshi as well as IAS officer Smita Sabharwal serving in Telangana.
Case Title: Salman Mahmood v. State of Telangana & others
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 52
The Telangana High Court has held that a postgraduate medical student who fails even one theory paper cannot seek permission to re-appear only in that paper, and must instead re-appear for all four theory papers along with practical/clinical and viva voce examinations, in terms of the regulatory scheme governing PG medical education.
Referring to the provisions of Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations 2023, Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka observed:
“The regulatory framework, as placed on record, clearly establishes that the Post Graduate medical examination is a composite and integrated assessment consisting of multiple components, namely theory (four papers), practical/clinical and viva voce, and that each of these components constitutes a 'head of passing'… Once a candidate fails to meet the prescribed minimum in any one component, the result is declared as 'failed', and the candidate is required to undergo the process of re-assessment in accordance with the regulatory scheme.”
Case Title: V. Anil Kumar & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors. and connected matters
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 53
The Telangana High Court has said that distance education degrees obtained by students through study centres outside the university's jurisdiction are not valid.
In doing so the court upheld the rejection of candidates seeking appointment as Librarian under a government notification, who had obtained Masters in Library Science through distance education from Acharya Nagarjuna University–the jurisdiction of which was confined to Andhra Pradesh, but via study centres located in Telangana.
Case Title: Sanjay Agarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 54
The Telangana High Court has held that a single-member Bench of the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA can validly pass orders confirming provisional attachment and permitting retention of seized material.
In doing so, it held that at that stage the standard is only one of prima facie satisfaction on the basis of material on record, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Case Title: The Singareni Collieries Company Limited & Ors. v. Madurakavi Kistaiah & Anr. and connected matters
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 55
The Telangana High Court has held that specific, measurable and permanent disabilities arising from injury or disease cannot be pushed into the residual category of “general physical debility” (a state of weakness or infirmity) under Clause 9.4.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA)-VI.
In doing so the court granted relief to five medically invalidated Singareni workers and held that they must be treated under Clause 9.4.0(i), which carries entitlement to dependent employment. Clause 9.4.0(i) grants employment to one dependent of a worker who is permanently disabled in his place.
Case Title: Dr. M & another v. Union of India & another
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 56
The Telangana High Court granted relief to a married woman suffering from Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS) [missing uterus and ovaries], denied an eligibility certificate for surrogacy on the ground that her cytogenetic report showed a '46 XY karyotype' disqualifying her under the relevant rules.
In doing so the court said that denying her an opportunity for surrogacy on ground of her not being a "perfect woman" in against the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021.
Case title: L.S. Chowhan v. Union of India & 9 others
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 57
The Telangana High Court has held that non-issuance of an integrity certificate, though a procedural lapse, does not by itself vitiate an IPS promotion process under the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations.
In doing so the court noted that the petitioner a State Police Service officer who had applied for promotion to the IPS, was independently assessed by the Selection Committee on comparative merit and had graded him lower than the officers ultimately included in the Select List.
Case title: Jagannath v. The Registrar (Administration), High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad & another
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 58
The Telangana High Court has held that a court employee who pursued a regular three-year LL.B. course without prior permission cannot later seek ratification of that degree for entry in his service register, particularly after his earlier writ petition seeking the same relief had been withdrawn without liberty to re-agitate the issue.
A Division Bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao observed that the petitioner, having once withdrawn an earlier writ petition without seeking liberty, was “estopped” from approaching the authorities again for the same relief.
Case Title: Ravi & another v. Union of India
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 59
The Telangana High Court has held that an assertion by the Railways that a deceased passenger probably committed suicide is not enough to deny compensation to the family under Section 124-A of the Railways Act 1989 in absence of any proof.
The court further said that once claimants place material showing that the victim was travelling on a valid ticket and died in an accidental fall, the burden shifts to the Railways to prove otherwise.
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 60
The Telangana High Court quashed a family court order restraining a wife from going anywhere near her husband including his house and his working, during pendency of divorce proceedings.
Terming the restraint order as "unprecedented" the court observed that merely because the wife had filed criminal cases against her husband would not justify such a severe consequence.
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 61
Quashing a family court order restraining the wife from going near her husband during pendency of divorce proceedings on the ground of her alleged "psychiatric disorder", the Telangana High Court remarked that the courts are least equipped to arrive at such a finding in absence of any expert medical evidence.
It said that thwarting free access of one individual to another, that too married persons, requires a high benchmark of justification. It remarked that family court does not disclose any such credible reasons.
Case Title: Pinninti Rachana Reddy & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 62
The Telangana High Court transferred to the CBCID investigation into the death of a cop who was working at Kukunoorpally Police Station, holding that when serious allegations are made against police officers themselves then investigation conducted by the same agency raises reasonable apprehension of bias warranting transfer.
Justice N. Tukaramji observed:
“In cases where allegations are made against police officials themselves, investigation by the same agency may give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. Even in the absence of proven mala fides, reasonable likelihood of bias is sufficient to warrant transfer of investigation.”
Case Title: Ms. Venkata Aswini Reddy Koyya @ Ashu Reddy v. Mr. Yetimulla Satyanarayana Murthy & 32 Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 63
The Telangana High Court has in an interim order restrained over 30 media platforms from publishing allegedly defamatory content against actress Ashu Reddy, until the trial court decides her injunction application in her defamation suit.
The actress had moved the high court, after the trial court refused to grant ex parte ad interim injunction.
Case Title: Madisetti Samelu v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 64
The Telangana High Court has held that a rowdy sheet cannot be continued on the basis of vague allegations, mechanical endorsements, and annual renewals unsupported by concrete material showing disturbance to public peace.
Quashing the rowdy sheet opened against a social worker, Justice N. Tukaramji observed:
"In the present case, the material on record indicates that the renewal of the rowdy sheet has been carried out at annual intervals, contrary to the requirement of periodic review as contemplated under the Standing Orders; the proposal for renewal submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police contains generalized and unsubstantiated allegations, such as the petitioner being “young and energetic” and allegedly encouraging tribals to encroach upon lands; the recommendation made by the Circle Inspector and the approval granted by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer appear to be mechanical, with endorsements such as “permitted,” without recording any independent reasons or satisfaction based on material; and there is no specific material placed on record demonstrating any recent overt act by the petitioner affecting public peace or law and order.
Case Title: Baqtawar Begum & 11 others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & 9 others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 65
The Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking release of land in Ranga Reddy District from the proposed reserved forest notification, referring to Supreme Court's judgment which had held that this land belonged to the Government and proposal for final notification under the Telangana Forest Act was validly initiated.
Notably in December last year the Supreme Court in State of Telangana, represented by Forest Divisional Officer v. Mir Jaffar Ali Khan (dead), through LRs and others had upheld rights of the forest department over 102 acres of land in the same district and had rejected the ownership claims made by alleged successors in-interest of Salar Jung-III, including the Claimants before it.
Case Title: Girigalla Srinivas v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 66
The Telangana High Court has held that postal department cannot indefinitely continue a freeze on Joint-B “Either or Survivor” fixed deposit accounts (joint account which allows either holder to operate it independently), merely because allegations of fraud were raised in a legal notice.
This, particularly when the Department of Posts itself has made no adjudication on such allegations, no rival claimant has come forward and the governing rules otherwise permit either holder to independently operate the deposits.
Private School Teachers Entitled To Gratuity After 2009 Amendment: Telangana High Court
Case Title: The Warden & Correspondent, St. George's Grammar School & another v. State of Andhra Pradesh & others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 67
The Telangana High Court has held that teachers in private educational institutions are entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, in view of the 2009 amendment which retrospectively widened the definition of “employee” with effect from 03.04.1997.
The amendment was made via the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009.
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi held that the earlier Supreme Court ruling excluding teachers from the Act no longer governs the field after the amendment.
Case Title: Syed Arshed Ahmed @ Arshad Hashmi v. V. Srinivasa Rao
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 68
The Telangana High Court has held that contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely because a charge sheet was filed despite a subsisting stay order, unless there is cogent material to show that the officer concerned had actual knowledge of the stay order and still willfully violated it.
In doing so the court also issued a slew directions to ensure complaince of judicial orders impeded due to ineffective communication, adding that the compliance with the the court's directions is mandatory and any deviation therefrom will be viewed seriously.
Case Title: Sri Naralasetty Pavan Chandra Nagoor v. Sri Ravi Kumar Meruva
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 69
The Telangana High Court has held that a money decree passed by the Federal Court of Sharjah is executable in India under Section 44A CPC since the United Arab Emirates is a notified reciprocating territory and the judgment debtor failed to show that the decree fell within any of the exceptions under Section 13 CPC.
Section 13 states situations when a foreign judgment is not conclusive. One such situation is prescribed under Section 13(b) where the foreign judgment it has not been given on the merits of the case.
Case Title: J.V. Nrupender Rao v. Regional P.F. Commissioner-II, Regional Office & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 70
The Telangana High Court has held that if an establishment and its provident fund trust fail to transfer past accumulations to the Employee Provident Fund Organisarion after surrender of exemption, the statutory liability is on the employer and the trust and not automatically on the employee who received settlement of his own PF dues.
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka held that, in the absence of any specific statutory provision authorising direct recovery from the employee, and in the absence of compliance with principles of natural justice, such a recovery notice cannot be sustained.
Case Title: Reshma v. State of A.P.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 71
The Telangana High Court has upheld the conviction of a wife for culpable homicide not amounting to murder who had during a sudden quarrel, in the spur of the moment, stabbed her husband after he allegedly showed up naked, threatened and abused her family members.
IPC Section 304 Part II pertains to culpable homicide not amounting to murder
Justice Tirumala Devi Eada while upholding the conviction under IPC Section 304 Part II, however took a lenient view on sentence and reduced the four-year jail term to fine alone.
Case Title: Shaik Abdul Khader v. G. Anil Dutt Kamble
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 72
The Telangana High Court allowed a petition by a decree-holder seeking permission to deposit the balance sale consideration after a delay of 3358 days, noting that the respondent seller had neither contested the specific performance suit nor challenged the decree for nearly 10 years after it was passed.
Justice Renuka Yara observed that once the respondent had allowed the decree for specific performance to attain finality, he could not have a valid ground to oppose the later plea for condonation of delay in deposit of the sale consideration.
Case Title: Nalamada Uthamkumar Reddy v. State of Telangana & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 73
The Telangana High Court quashed a case against former MP Nalamada Uttamkumar Reddy in connection with a 2019 roadshow during the Huzurnagar Assembly by-election, holding that prosecution for an offence under Section 188 IPC could not have been initiated on a police report due to bar under Section 195(1)(a) CrPC.
Section 188 IPC pertains to disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant. Section 195(1)(a) CrPC states that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of IPC except "on the complaint" in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.
Case Title: K. Ganesh Rao v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 74
The Telangana High Court has held that renewal of an arms licence cannot be refused on the basis of generalized law-and-order concerns, vague apprehensions that Maoists or anti-social elements may snatch the weapon, or unsubstantiated allegations of misuse, when there is no concrete adverse material against the licence-holder.
Allowing a writ petition filed by a trade union leader from Mahabubnagar, Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy held that the rejection order rested only on “general law and order concerns and unsubstantiated apprehensions,” which did not satisfy the statutory requirements under Section 14(1)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959.
Telangana High Court Declines Interim Protection From Arrest To Bandi Bageerath In POCSO Case
Case Title: Bandi Sai Bageerath v/s State of Telangana
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 75
In a hearing spanning over two and half hours and nearly touching the midnight mark, the Telangana High Court on Friday (May 15) refused to grant interim protection from arrest to Bandi Sai Bageerath, son of Minister of State for Home Affairs and BJP leader Bandi Sanjay Kumar, who is booked in a POCSO case.
As the hearing drew to a close the court orally said that it had thought of passing an order however given the volume and the materials in the matter it would not be able to pass an order at the moment.
Case Title: Dr. Pachipala Namratha @ Athaluri Namratha v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 76
The Telangana High Court refused to interfere with the arrest of fertility doctor under the PMLA in a case containing allegations of cheating and illegal surrogacy, holding that a writ petition challenging arrest under PMLA cannot be converted into a “surrogate bail hearing” or a “mini-trial” on the correctness of the investigation.
A Division Bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda said that at this stage, judicial review is confined to legality, jurisdictional facts and procedural fairness, and not to an appellate reassessment of the material collected by the Enforcement Directorate.
Case Title: S. Sanjeev v. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, TSNPDCL, OP, Nirmal District, Telangana State & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 77
The Telangana High Court has held that a missing employee cannot be treated as a case of “death in harness” merely because 7 years have passed raising presumption of death under Section 108 Indian Evidence Act, to claim benefit of compassionate appointment scheme if scheme contains a separate category for missing employees.
Dismissing a writ appeal filed by the son of a missing TSNPDCL lineman, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin held that the statutory presumption under Section 108 cannot be used to bypass the express terms of the scheme.
Case Title: XXXXX v. XXXXX
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 78
The Telangana High Court has granted divorce to a woman who alleged that her husband had fraudulently misrepresented his age on a matrimonial website, resulting in an incorrect horoscope match and an arranged marriage solemnised under a mistaken belief regarding compatibility.
A Division Bench of Justice K. Lakshman and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao observed that the husband had furnished a wrong date of birth on the matrimonial portal, which led the wife and her family to obtain horoscope matching based on incorrect particulars. Allowing the appeal, the Court dissolved the marriage by granting a decree of divorce.
Case Title: Lakakula Ayappa v. State of Telangana & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 79
The Telangana High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a man accused of posting objectionable messages in a WhatsApp group against a local political leader and TRS leaders, holding that the allegations prima facie disclosed offences under Sections 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 505(2) (statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes) and 153-A (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence. language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony) of the IPC.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Tirumala Devi Eada observed:
“In the present case also the petitioner has shared a message on the WhatsApp group, which is a prominent social media and thus, the petitioner is not justified in posting objectionable messages in the WhatsApp group. The allegations point out that the said message would harm the reputation and tarnish the image of the de facto complainant. Since the allegations prima facie point out the offences alleged against the petitioner, the proceedings cannot be quashed. The veracity of the witnesses and the truth or otherwise in the allegations can be culled out after a full-fledged trial.”
Case Title: Ganduri Krishna v. State of Telangana & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 80
The Telangana High Court has allowed a criminal revision filed by an accused who was prosecuted over messages posted in a WhatsApp group against a public representative, holding that mere criticism in a private social media group would not, by itself, constitute offences under Sections 504, 505(1)(b) and 506 IPC unless the essential ingredients of the offences are made out. These Sections of the IPC cover the offences of intentional insult to provoke breach of the peace, public mischief, and criminal intimidation respectively.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Sujana observed:
“Mere expression of criticism, particularly in a private social media group, would not by itself constitute the ingredients of the offences alleged unless the prosecution establishes the essential elements required under the respective provisions of law.”
The Court was dealing with a criminal revision challenging the order dated 05.01.2026 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissing the accused's discharge petition under Section 239 CrPC.
Case Title: Smt. K. Kalyani & Ors. v. The Managing Director & CDO, HRD Department & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 81
The Telangana High Court has directed the State Bank of India to extend Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) benefits to the legal heirs of a deceased employee, observing that the employee's application had already been scrutinised and accepted before his death, and denial of benefits in such circumstances could not be justified.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao observed:
“When a VRS application filed by an applicant has not been scrutinized and is not yet accepted by the respondents, this Court can accept the contentions of the respondent authorities in the event of the applicant's death. However, in the present case, the applicant had applied for VRS, the withdrawal period had already expired, and the application had been scrutinized and accepted, and the same was informed to the concerned Branch. At that juncture, the applicant passed away. In these circumstances, this Court feels that the denial of VRS benefits to the petitioners cannot be justified.”
Case Title: Sri Nandasu Laxmidas v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 82
The Telangana High Court has declined to direct shifting of a telecommunication rooftop tower which had already been erected and functioning since 2014, but directed the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation to take steps for technological upgradation so as to reduce radiation levels and ensure that there are no health hazards to local residents.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao observed: “Though it is brought to the notice of this Court that in the recent past, new and advanced technologies have emerged which considerably reduce radiation levels from cell towers, since the subject cell tower has already been erected and has been functioning since 2014, this Court is not inclined to issue any direction to the cellular companies to shift the said towers. However, it would suffice to direct the respondent No.2-Corporation to issue appropriate directions to the respondent No.4-cellular company to upgrade its technology in accordance with the new emerging standards, so as to reduce radiation levels and to ensure that there are no health hazards to the local inhabitants.”
Case Title: Jogaram Lohar v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 83
The Telangana High Court has directed the Director General of Police to register a crime/FIR and entrust investigation to a Special Investigation Team (SIT) or CB-CID on a petition alleging illegal detention, coercion and abuse of authority by police officials.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice N. Tukaramji observed:
“This inconsistency raises serious concerns regarding the legality of the petitioner's alleged detention. If the petitioner was not formally shown as an accused, his production before the Magistrate would not arise. The respondents' version, therefore, appears incongruent with the record, warranting closer scrutiny. While allegations relating to coercion, execution of GPA, and seizure of documents involve disputed questions of fact not amenable to adjudication under writ jurisdiction, the inconsistencies in the respondents' stand and the prima facie material necessitate an independent and impartial investigation.”
Case Title: Kanakati Naresh v. Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 84
The Telangana High Court has held that a citizen's bank account cannot be frozen indefinitely merely on the basis of internal correspondence, portal alerts or informal electronic communications, unless such action is traceable to authority of law.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka observed:
“A citizen's bank account cannot be frozen indefinitely merely on internal correspondence, portal alerts or informal electronic communications unless such action is traceable to authority of law. Money lying in a bank account is property of the account holder. Restriction upon operation of such account affects right to livelihood, right to property in accordance with law, and access to one's legitimate funds. Even where investigative agencies seek protective measures, the action must satisfy minimum legal safeguards. There must be authority of law, communication of reasons where permissible, and a fair procedure.”
Case Title: Peddi Sudershan Reddy v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 85
The Telangana High Court directed the School Education Department to conduct a detailed enquiry into a complaint alleging irregularities and loss to the State exchequer in relation to a tender for supply, commissioning and installation of bunker beds with mattresses and pillows in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalayas (KGBVs).
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka observed:
“At this stage, it is also necessary to emphasize that writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked to supervise or micro-manage the manner in which an administrative enquiry is to be conducted once the competent authority has already initiated the process. The Court is also conscious of the fact that Petitioner has raised several allegations regarding irregularities in the tender process, alleged price escalation and alleged loss to the public exchequer. However, those issues are not directly the subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition.”
Case Title: Vijay Gopal v. Bar Council of India & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 86
The Telangana High Court read down Rule 6 of the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015 and held that membership in a Bar Association cannot be made compulsory for advocates and non-membership shall not disentitle or restrict an advocate from practising law.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice N. Tukaramji observed:
“Rule 6 cannot be interpreted or enforced in a manner that renders membership in a Bar Association compulsory or delegates regulatory control over the right to practice to non-statutory bodies. To that extent, any coercive or mandatory interpretation would be ultra vires the Advocates Act, 1961 and violative of Articles 19(1)(c) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Further, as a regulatory provision, Rule 6 merely provides an option to the Advocate and serves a legitimate objective of welfare and identification. Interpreted in this manner, the rule would be intra vires the Act, 1961 and constitutionally valid.”
Case Title: Seeloju Shiva Kumar v. State of Telangana and another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 87
The Telangana High Court has refused to quash abetment to suicide FIR under Section 108 BNS registered against a journalist and an advocate, over an interview containing defamatory statements against the deceased uploaded on YouTube and circulated on social media.
The allegation was that in an interview given to the journalist in the presence of the advocate, relatives of accused no. 1 made allegedly defamatory statements after which the deceased is stated to have committed suicide.
Case Title: Mr. Konda Hemanth Kumar v. State of Telangana & Anr. and batch
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 88
The Telangana High Court has held that a customer of a sex worker cannot be prosecuted for the offence of trafficking under Section 370 of the IPC; however the customer can be prosecuted under Section 370A(2) IPC if the sex worker is a trafficked person and the customer had knowledge or reason to believe the same.
For context, Section 370 IPC states that whoever, for the purpose of exploitation, (a) recruits, (b) transports, (c) harbours, (d) transfers, or (e) receives, a person or persons, by using threats, or using force, or any other form of coercion, or by abduction, or by fraud/deception, or abuse of power or by inducement, including the giving or receiving of payments or benefits, in order to achieve the consent of any person having control over the person recruited, transported, harboured, transferred or received, commits the offence of trafficking.
Case Title: Munna Mohammed Ghouse & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 89
The Telangana High Court has held that the phrase “was earlier citizen of independent India” under Section 5(1)(f) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 is not confined only to former Indian citizens, but also includes persons who presently continue to hold Indian citizenship.
Section 5 pertains to citizenship by registration and 5(1)(f) states that the Central Government may, on an application made in this behalf, register as a citizen of India any person not being an illegal migrant who is not already such citizen by virtue of the Constitution or of any other provision of this Act, if he is a person of full age and capacity who, or either of his parents, "was earlier citizen of independent India", and is ordinarily resident in India for twelve months immediately before making an application for registration.
Case Title: Dr. Goteti Ravindranath v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 90
The Telangana High Court has held that a medical college cannot withhold a doctor's original educational certificates to enforce a service bond executed at the time of admission.
The Court observed that even if a candidate breaches the bond by failing to serve in government hospitals, the college has no lien over the original certificates and must recover the bond amount through appropriate legal proceedings.
Allowing a writ appeal filed by a doctor who had completed his super-specialty course, a Division Bench of Justice K. Lakshman and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao observed:
"Respondent No.8 – College has no lien over the original certificates of the candidates including the appellant herein. If appellant violates the aforesaid undertaking... respondent No.8 – College is entitled for an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- from the appellant... respondent No.8 – College has to file a suit against the appellant seeking recovery of money but it can't withhold the original certificates and it has no lien."
Case Title: J. Nagakumari v. State of Telangana
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 91
The Telangana High Court has held that attachment of properties standing in the name of a third party cannot continue merely because the person is related to an accused in a disproportionate assets case.
The Court further observed that where the sole accused dies before commencement of trial and the prosecution fails to establish a prima facie nexus between the attached properties and the alleged ill-gotten wealth, continuation of attachment would be legally unsustainable.
Case Title: Nagilla Srinivas v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 92
The Telangana High Court has directed the competent authority under the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act to conduct a detailed enquiry into allegations concerning the demolition and reconstruction of the historic Sri Kanyaka Parameshwari Temple located at Secunderabad.
The allegations include claims of unauthorized razing of the old structure and construction of new structures in the temple premises, relocation of the deity, non-performance of essential religious rituals, lack of audit of donations and alleged misuse of nearly ₹16 crore collected from devotees.
Case Title: M/s. Divyanagar Plot Owners Welfare Association v. Mr. Gowtham Potru & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 93
The Telangana High Court has held that the Registry cannot refuse to register a contempt petition on the ground that it is barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
The Court observed that questions relating to limitation or maintainability must only be decided by the contempt court itself.
Allowing a contempt appeal, a Division Bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda observed:
"At the outset, we are of the considered opinion that even if it be a matter of limitation or any other preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the contempt case is concerned, it is not the Registry which has to raise an objection, rather in a contempt case, the role of the appellant herein, the petitioner in contempt case, is only that of an informer informing the Court in respect of the so-called violation or non-compliance or disobedience of the order. Rest of the role is between the Court and the contemnor. Maintainability of the case itself is again a matter, which needs to be considered and decided only by the contempt Court seized of jurisdiction."
Case Title: Varikota Ramgopal v. State of Telangana & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 94
The Telangana High Court has held that while empanelment does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment as a Government Pleader, the Government cannot arbitrarily discard an already prepared panel and substitute it with a fresh one without giving reasons or without following a fair, transparent and legally sustainable process.
Allowing a writ petition filed by an advocate whose name was omitted from a revised panel for appointment as Government Pleader, Justice N. Tukaramji observed that from the statutory framework, it is evident that the role of the District Judge and the District Collector in the process is recommendatory in nature.
Case Title: Jyothi Estates v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 95
The Telangana High Court has held that the State cannot claim title over a property or erect a signboard declaring it to be "Government land" solely on the basis of entries in the Town Survey Land Register (TSLR) in absence of any substantive material or title documents to support its claim.
The Court observed that TSLR entries are only revenue records and do not by themselves establish title.
Allowing a writ petition filed by Jyothi Estates, Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty observed:
"The State cannot claim title over the subject land merely based on the entries in the TSLRs and thereby, it is not entitled to erect a sign board as 'Government land' in the subject land. The State is at liberty to approach appropriate forum to declare its title over the subject land and subject to the result therefrom, then proceed in accordance with law."