Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 96 - 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 122Nominal IndexSyed Qutubuddin Masood v/s The Election Commission of India 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 96Anumula Revanth Reddy v/s The State of Telangana and batch 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 97M Divya And Three Others v/s M/s. Pavani Estates Private Limited 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 98Bandi Sai Bageerath @ Bhageeratg v The State of Telangana and Others 2026...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 96 - 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 122
Nominal Index
Syed Qutubuddin Masood v/s The Election Commission of India 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 96
Anumula Revanth Reddy v/s The State of Telangana and batch 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 97
M Divya And Three Others v/s M/s. Pavani Estates Private Limited 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 98
Bandi Sai Bageerath @ Bhageeratg v The State of Telangana and Others 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 99
P. Mohammed Iliyas v. State of Telangana & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 100
Boorla Mahesh & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 101
Samaiah P v. The District Registrar, Nizamabad District & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 102
Brothers of St. Gabriel Educational Society & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 103
K v. I 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 104
Gotiga Raj Kumar @ Raju v. State of Telangana 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 109
Md. Khalid v. Mohammed Khaja Aijaz Ali 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 110
Arokya Swamy Joseph v. Government of India & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 111
Karanam Rajesh Kumar v. State of Telangana & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 112
Haseeb Ullah Khan v. State of Telangana 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 113
Smt. Jadi Swarupa Rani v. State of Telangana & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 114
Jalagam Prasad Rao v. State of Telangana & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 115
Wells Fargo International Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Telangana State Human Rights Commission & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 116
Dr. Peddeli David v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 117
Kistaiahgari Sandeep v. State of Telangana & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 118
Sri Chandra Mohan Reddy Somi Reddy v. Union Bank of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 119
S. Nandini v. NALSAR University of Law 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 120
M/s Sunrise Entertainments v. Central Board of Film Certification & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 121
Mahabubnagar District Packaged Drinking Water Manufacturers' Association v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 122
Judgments/ Orders This Month
Case Title: Syed Qutubuddin Masood v/s The Election Commission of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 96
The Telangana High Court has asked a family to participate in the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process in the State over their grievance on deletion of their names from the electoral rolls.
A division bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin noted that the SIR process provides for a forum and procedure for inclusion of electors whose names have been deleted from the rolls.
It therefore dismissed the family's plea seeking a direction to ECI to implement the procedure for grievance redressal regarding wrongful deletion of names from the electoral roll and for restoration of such names along with their original EPIC (Voter ID) numbers and electoral records.
Case Title: Anumula Revanth Reddy v/s The State of Telangana and batch
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 97
The Telangana High Court has quashed FIRs lodged against Chief Minister Revanth Reddy for obstructing traffic and causing inconvenience while conducting road-shows at different locations as part of his campaign for the 2019 Huzurnagar by-elections.
The CM was booked under IPC Sections 341(wrongful restraint) and 188(Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant).
The allegation against the CM in one of the FIRs was that on 18.10.2019, during the Huzurnagar by-elections, the petitioner along with other leaders of the Indian National Congress conducted a roadshow at Janapahad village from about 2:07 PM to 2:50 PM. It is alleged that due to the roadshow, the road remained blocked for approximately 43 minutes, obstructing free flow of traffic, and several vehicles participated without obtaining necessary permission from the competent authority.
Case Title: M Divya And Three Others v/s M/s. Pavani Estates Private Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 98
The Telangana High Court has held that parties cannot seek to remove or cure foundational defects at a subsequent stage in order to validate the institution of the Suit.
In doing so the court set aside a trial court order which had permitted the plaintiff to ratify an earlier resolution, in order to replace the original basis of authority for institution of the Suit which the court said the plaintiff could not have done.
Case Title: Bandi Sai Bageerath @ Bhageeratg v The State of Telangana and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 99
The Telangana High Court on Thursday (July 9) granted bail to Bandi Sai Bageerath, son of Minister of State for Home Affairs Bandi Sanjay Kumar, in POCSO case taking note of the prosecution's submission that the probe was almost completed and observed that apprehension of influencing of witnesses can be curbed by imposing stringent conditions.
Besides directing him not to contact the victim or witnesses, the High Court restrained the petitioner from making any public statement or posting any content relating to the case on social media or through the press until the conclusion of the trial.
Case Title: P. Mohammed Iliyas v. State of Telangana & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 100
The Telangana High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a government school teacher accused of violating the Model Code of Conduct by posting derogatory comments against a political candidate on Facebook during the 2023 Assembly elections.
The Court held that mere political criticism or offensive social media posts, in the absence of coercion, intimidation or unlawful interference with voters, do not amount to the offence of "undue influence" at elections. It further observed that breach of the Model Code of Conduct, by itself, does not constitute a criminal offence unless a specific penal provision is attracted.
Case Title: Boorla Mahesh & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 101
The Telangana High Court has upheld the State Government's order reserving posts of Extension Officers Grade-I and Grade-II (Anganwadi Supervisors) exclusively for women, holding that the policy is a valid exercise of the State's power under Article 15(3) of the Constitution.
The Court observed that the beneficiaries of the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) scheme are predominantly women and children and that the Government's policy decision could not be interfered with merely because men were also capable of performing the duties attached to the posts.
Case Title: Samaiah P v. The District Registrar, Nizamabad District & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 102
The Telangana High Court has held that a ballot paper bearing a tick mark (✓) instead of the prescribed "Swastik" mark could not have been rejected in the absence of any rule or bye-law mandating exclusive use of the Swastik symbol.
Holding that election authorities cannot elevate "procedural formality over substantive democratic choice", the Court declared the petitioner duly elected as General Secretary of the Bodhan Bar Association after counting the disputed ballot in his favour. The Court also held that the Election Officer had no jurisdiction to direct that the office be shared between the two candidates for six months each, observing that such an arrangement was "alien to democratic principles governing representative institutions."
Case Title: Brothers of St. Gabriel Educational Society & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 103
The Telangana High Court has held that minority educational institutions cannot be compelled to provide free education to the children of journalists by invoking the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act).
The Court held that the RTE Act is inapplicable to minority educational institutions in view of the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench decision in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India. It further held that State lacked statutory authority to extend such a benefit to a particular class of persons merely on the basis of representations made by journalists' associations.
Case Title: K v. I
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 104
The Telangana High Court has held that secretly recording telephone conversations of a spouse without their consent constitutes a breach of the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution and that such recordings cannot be admitted in evidence in matrimonial proceedings.
The Court further held that documents sought to be produced as electronic evidence must also have a clear nexus with the issues in dispute and cannot be received merely because they are available in electronic form.
Case title: Gotiga Raj Kumar @ Raju v. State of Telangana
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 109
The Telangana High Court has granted bail to a man accused of stalking a minor girl, threatening to morph her photographs into obscene images and upload them on social media, and later trespassing into her house along with his relatives.
The Court noted that the petitioner had been in custody since May 23, 2026, that material witnesses had already been examined, and that substantial part of the investigation had been completed.
Case title: Md. Khalid v. Mohammed Khaja Aijaz Ali
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 110
The Telangana High Court has held that a party seeking to rely on emails and WhatsApp chats originating from their own personal device is not required to obtain a Section 65B certificate from an external or official authority.
It held that the owner and manager of the device can furnish the certificate contemplated under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It thus set aside a trial court's refusal to receive such electronic evidence.
Case Title: Arokya Swamy Joseph v. Government of India & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 111
The Telangana High Court has held that Telugu feature film starring actress Rashmika Mandana 'The Girlfriend' ought to have been granted an 'A' certificate instead of a 'UA 13+' certificate, after taking note of the film's portrayal of conduct inside a girls' hostel and its overall likely impact upon viewers below 18 years of age.
The Court said that it was not inclined to interfere with the content of the film, it however directed the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to reconsider the film's certification within four weeks.
Telangana Advocates Protection Act Can't Shield Lawyers Accused Of Illegal Activities: High Court
Case Title: Karanam Rajesh Kumar v. State of Telangana & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 112
The Telangana High Court has held that the protections under the Telangana Advocates Protection Act, 2026 are intended to safeguard advocates from violence and intimidation faced in the discharge of their professional duties, but cannot be invoked to prevent investigation or arrest in criminal cases alleging illegal acts committed by advocates.
The Court accordingly dismissed a writ petition filed by an advocate seeking protection from coercive action in a fake Government Orders case.
Case Title: Haseeb Ullah Khan v. State of Telangana
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 113
The Telangana High Court has upheld the cancellation of bail granted to an accused in a POCSO case after he refused to undergo a DNA test, holding that DNA profiling is a recognised investigative tool in sexual offence cases under Section 51 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The Court held that an accused cannot refuse such examination by invoking the protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
Case Title: Smt. Jadi Swarupa Rani v. State of Telangana & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 114
The Telangana High Court has held that a woman government employee cannot be denied maternity leave for her second delivery merely because her first pregnancy resulted in the birth of twins.
The Court ruled that the "less than two surviving children" condition under the Telangana Fundamental Rules cannot be interpreted literally to disentitle a woman from maternity benefits where twins were born in a single biological event.
Case Title: Jalagam Prasad Rao v. State of Telangana & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 115
The Telangana High Court has upheld the withdrawal of personal security officers granted to former united Andhra Pradesh Minister Jalagam Prasad Rao, after noting that the security review committee had reported that there was no threat perception to the petitioner.
The court also held that no person has a vested or enforceable legal right to the continuation of personal security arrangements and that the decision to provide or withdraw security is an administrative one based on periodic threat assessment and found no reason to interfere after authorities concluded that the petitioner faced no present threat. It also found that the petitioner has not been in active politics for now.
Case Title: Wells Fargo International Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Telangana State Human Rights Commission & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 116
The Telangana High Court has held that the State Human Rights Commission (TSHRC) has no jurisdiction under Protection of Human Rights Act to entertain complaints alleging workplace harassment against a private company, as its jurisdiction is confined to human rights violation by "public servants" or negligence by them in prevention.
The Court clarified that while allegations of workplace harassment may warrant legal redress, they must be pursued before the forum recognised by law and not before the Human Rights Commission.
Case Title: Dr. Peddeli David v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 117
The Telangana High Court has directed the Telangana Government to declare the result of a candidate who appeared for the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) Chairperson examination after an interim order of the Court.
The Court had earlier held that the mere pendency of a criminal case is not a ground to disqualify a candidate under Section 27 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and directed the authorities to issue him a hall ticket. Since the petitioner had taken the examination pursuant to that order, the Court directed that his result be declared forthwith.
Case Title: Kistaiahgari Sandeep v. State of Telangana & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 118
The Telangana High Court has quashed a Magistrate's order taking cognizance and issuing summons in a criminal case, holding that an order summoning an accused cannot be passed mechanically or through a cryptic docket order.
The Court observed that taking cognizance requires due application of mind and recording of satisfaction that the material discloses a prima facie case. It clarified, however, that the Magistrate would be free to consider the matter afresh and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.
Case Title: Sri Chandra Mohan Reddy Somi Reddy v. Union Bank of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 119
The Telangana High Court has directed the Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department (CBCID) to conduct a comprehensive enquiry into the alleged large-scale encroachment of over 74 acres of government land classified as Jilavarkhan Cheruvu (notified government water body) in Injapur Village, Ranga Reddy district.
Holding that the material on record indicated active collusion by revenue authorities and wilful inaction in protecting public land, the Court also directed the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, to initiate action against officials responsible for failing to prevent the encroachments.
Case Title: S. Nandini v. NALSAR University of Law
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 120
The Telangana High Court has refused to direct NALSAR University of Law to permit an MBA student to appear in supplementary examinations after she was detained for shortage of attendance due to prolonged illness.
Holding that sympathy and equitable considerations cannot override mandatory academic regulations, the Court ruled that a student barred from writing end-term examinations for lack of attendance is also ineligible to appear for supplementary examinations under the University's rules.
Case Title: M/s Sunrise Entertainments v. Central Board of Film Certification & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 121
The Telangana High Court directed the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to release the Certificate for "Raam Bhajarang" film, observing that the authority cannot withhold the certification solely because a third party has filed a writ petition claiming rights over the film in the absence of any interim order.
The Court observed that the CBFC's statutory function is confined to certifying films under the Cinematograph Act and not adjudicating private commercial disputes between rival claimants.
Case Title: Mahabubnagar District Packaged Drinking Water Manufacturers' Association v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 122
The Telangana High Court has directed the State and District Collectors to take effective steps to prevent manufacture and sale of uncertified packaged drinking water, after recording the Government's assurance that it would frame appropriate guidelines and strictly enforce the statutory provisions governing safe potable drinking water.
The writ petition was filed by the Mahabubnagar District Packaged Drinking Water Manufacturers' Association alleging that several unauthorised units were manufacturing and selling packaged drinking water without obtaining the requisite ISI certification or establishing the necessary infrastructure. The Association contended that such uncertified drinking water posed a serious risk to public health and that despite repeated complaints, the authorities had failed to take action.