Nominal Index [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 97 - 104]Anumula 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 LiveLaw (Tel) 99P. Mohammed Iliyas v. State of Telangana & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 100Boorla...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 97 - 104]
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
Judgments/ Orders This Week
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.