Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 78 - 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 95Nominal IndexXXXXX v. XXXXX 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 78Lakakula Ayappa v. State of Telangana & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 79Ganduri Krishna v. State of Telangana & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 80Smt. K. Kalyani & Ors. v. The Managing Director & CDO, HRD Department & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 81Sri Nandasu Laxmidas v. State of...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 78 - 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 95
Nominal Index
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
Judgments/ Orders This Month
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."