Telangana High Court Contempt Case
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court’s division bench, led by Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J Sreenivas Rao, reviewed a contempt case on Monday. The case was filed by social activist and advocate Mamidi Venu Madhav. He sought action against government officers for not following the High Court’s order from September 9, 2021. The court had directed the government to stop immersing Ganesh idols made of plaster of Paris (PoP) in Hussainsagar Lake, as it causes pollution and harms the lake.
Despite the court’s order, the government has continued to immerse PoP idols in the lake. This year, the government again planned to immerse these idols in Hussainsagar. A meeting was held on August 28 at Dr. MCR HRD, attended by ministers, the Mayor, and various officials, where it was decided to set up 33 cranes around the lake for the immersion. This decision clearly violated the High Court’s orders.
During the contempt hearing, Additional Advocate General (AAG) Imran Khan requested a week’s time to file the government’s response. However, the petitioner argued that the government repeatedly asks for more time and continues to violate the court’s orders. The Chief Justice, disagreeing with the petitioner, noted that the issue was raised at the last minute, which he felt was an attempt to exert undue pressure on the court. The bench adjourned the case to September 9 and directed the government to submit its response by then.
PIL Against Smita Sabharwal Dismissed
On the same day, the High Court’s division bench dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) at the scrutiny stage. The PIL was filed by social activist Vasundhara Koppula, who sought a direction to Smita Sabharwal, member-secretary of the Telangana State Finance Commission, to delete her controversial tweets against differently abled persons from her X account (@SmitaSabharwal).
During the hearing, the Chief Justice noted that Smita Sabharwal’s remarks did not infringe upon the rights of differently abled persons to their reservations. He emphasized that nobody’s reservation rights, which are protected by the Constitution, were affected by her comments.
The Chief Justice further stated that Smita Sabharwal’s remarks were her personal opinions and did not influence any government policy decisions. He also highlighted that every citizen has the right to freedom of expression and speech. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the comments severely affected the dignity and rights of differently abled persons across the country, but the court was not convinced.
The remarks by Smita Sabharwal were related to Puja Khedkar, whose UPSC candidature was recently canceled on allegations of faking her identity to gain more attempts under the disabled quota. However, the court found no grounds to take action against Smita Sabharwal based on her personal opinions.
