The Telangana High Court initiated a criminal contempt case against a suspended advocate for appearing in a matter, observing that despite suspension of his license/enrolment he had appeared in robes, filed a vakalat wherein he also presented himself as a Supreme Court lawyer. 

The court also directed its Registrar to "immediately lodge a criminal complaint" against the lawyer before the Police Station concerned for his fraudulent and defiant acts in appearing before the Courts as an Advocate when in fact he was specifically debarred by the Bar Council from practicing as an Advocate.

The court passed the order while dismissing a plea filed by landowners alleging that AP TRANSCO/ TG TRANSCO dug up their agricultural land at Bayannagudem Village in Shankarpally Mandal for erecting a 220 KV transmission line without initiating acquisition proceedings.

The single judge bench of Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka also found that a lawyer, A. Ushi Reddy, had 'played fraud on the courts' by appearing as an advocate despite Bar Council suspension.

“…Sri Ushi Reddy has played fraud on the courts by appearing, filing cases and vakalat as an advocate, hence, this Court holds that Mr. Ushi Reddy cannot practice as an Advocate before any Court of law…nor can he represent before any authority as an Advocate. Even before this Court, he has appeared in robes as an Advocate, and only on the objection that a party-in-person cannot appear in robes as an Advocate, on a later date, he appeared without robes. In the counter, he presented himself as a Supreme Court Advocate. Sri Ushi Reddy is liable to be prosecuted for the illegal acts of presenting himself as an advocate, when his enrolment/ license issued by the Bar Counsel is suspended, prohibiting him from practice. The conduct amounts to interference with the administration of justice…

Also the Registry (Judicial) of this Court is directed to initiate contempt proceedings against Mr A.Ushi Reddy for interfering with the administration of justice by appearing in 17 this Court and filing Vakalaths by proclaiming himself as an Advocate. It is further directed that unless and until proceedings in Roc. No. DC.645/2025 dated 25.11.2025 issued by the Bar Council for the State of Telangana are interdicted by any court of law or the appellate authority, by suspending or setting aside the said proceedings, Mr A.Ushi Reddy is not entitled to practice in any court/quasi judicial/statutory or any authority of this country as an Advocate by exposing/projecting himself as an Advocate".

For context, Ushi Reddy had originally appeared for petitioner No. 1 in the matter. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn against petitioner no.1 on 06.07.2026. At a later stage, Reddy claimed to be a party-in-person.

The Court recorded that the Bar Council of Telangana had suspended Ushi Reddy from practice in 2025, pending disciplinary proceedings.

The court pointed out that the suspension order had not been stayed or interdicted by any judicial forum or appellate authority.

Further, the suspended advocate's counter did not deny the suspension proceedings, but contended that the Bar Council had no power to suspend an advocate and that the order was without jurisdiction. Instead, Reddy claimed that he had initiated contempt proceedings against Bar Council members.

The Court rejected this stance. It held that the Bar Council is a statutory body under Section 5 of the Advocates Act, 1961, and that an order passed by it remains in force unless stayed or interdicted.

“…If the contention of Sri Ushi Reddy is that Bar Council had no jurisdiction/legal authority to suspend an Advocate, it is always open for him to challenge the said proceedings before appropriate forum including this Court, but however, he remained silent without doing so and has been appearing before Courts as an Advocate, by deceiving the judicial fora…”, the court remarked.

The Court further directed that unless the Bar Council proceedings dated 25.11.2025 are suspended or set aside by a court or appellate authority, Ushi Reddy is not entitled to practice in any court, quasi-judicial, statutory or other authority in the country as an advocate.

“…This Court, therefore, directs the Registrar (Management) of this Court to immediately lodge a criminal complaint against Sri Ushi Reddy before the Police Station concerned for his fraudulent and defiant acts in appearing before the Courts as an Advocate…”,the court said.

The Registry was directed to communicate the order to the Bar Council of Telangana so that it can be circulated to all Bar Associations in the State.

To recap on the merits of the matter, the petitioners had claimed ownership of agricultural lands in certain survey numbers. They alleged that unknown persons began digging their land at the instance of AP TRANSCO for laying the 220 KV DC line from the 400/220 KV Yeddumailaram Sub-Station.

In the plea, petitioners claiming to be landowners, sought re-routing of the alignment by shifting two pillars to the edge of their land.

However, the respondent state contended that the scheme was approved and published in the Gazette as far as back in 2011, and that the work was completed before the writ petition was filed. The state authorities also submitted that the tower at Location 3/1 fell in plots, which as per revenue records, stood in the name of individuals other than the petitioners.

The Chief Engineer had informed the third petitioner by a letter in 2012 that the total reach/line had already been completed, and hence shifting was not possible, it was submitted further.

The Court noted that the petitioners had not contradicted the respondents' stand that the disputed survey numbers stood in another person's name and that the towers had already been erected. It further held that no rights whatsoever of the petitioners had been violated by the respondents.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.