The Telangana High Court issued notices in the matter pertaining to constituting ‘Indiramma Committees’, citing potential violations of constitutional and Panchayat Raj Act provisions
Published Date – 22 October 2024, 10:04 PM
By Legal correspondent
Hyderabad: Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court on Tuesday issued notices to the Transport, Roads & Buildings Department, Telangana State in the matter pertaining to constituting ‘Indiramma Committees’ at Gram Panchayat Level and Municipal Ward Level for implementing the beneficial scheme of Indiramma Indlu Programme. The state government had issued G.O.Ms.No. 33 on October 11, 2024 for constituting ‘Indiramma Committees’. The BJP Legislature Party, led by Floor Leader Alleti Maheshwar Reddy, has filed this writ plea challenging the G.O. Petitioner’s counsel, Akhil Ennamsetty, argued that the G.O. allows District Collectors to form Indiramma committees in consultation with District In-charge Ministers, which he claims is an arbitrary process that favours ruling party workers. This, he asserts, violates Article 243A of the Constitution and Section 6 of the Panchayat Raj Act. The constituting of the committees without reference to the Gram Sabhas and Ward Committees is illegal, pointed out the Petitioner counsel. The judge would hear the response of the state government on October 28.
2. Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court has directed the Police not to take any coercive measures against individuals allegedly involved in a riot near the Muthyalamma temple in Secunderabad on Sunday. The decision came during a hearing involving U Shiva Ramulu, represented by Senior Counsel L. Ravichander. Senior Counsel highlighted concerns about the police’s approach, asserting that their actions were unnecessarily polarizing the community along communal lines. He criticized the introduction of Section 109 of the BNS (Attempt to Murder), claiming it undermines police authority and makes a mockery of the legal process. Ravichander noted that the police did not allege any grievous injuries based on the evidence at hand, arguing that the remand report reflected a misuse of power. He presented detailed arguments, pointing out that the police had only recovered 10 stones, 7 sticks, and 33 pieces of footwear from the scene, which he contended did not pose a genuine threat to the lives of law enforcement officers. He also highlighted several discrepancies in the First Information Report (FIR) and the remand report, calling into question the integrity of the police investigation. After hearing the arguments from both sides, Justice Sree Devi instructed the prosecution to refrain from taking any coercive actions against the petitioner. However, due to time constraint, the judge was unable to hear petitions filed by other accused individuals arrested in connection with the incident. A group of senior advocates, including N. Ramchander Rao, J. Prabhakar Rao, and Rachana Reddy, are representing these other accused parties. The judge will continue to hear the matter on Wednesday. In another matter regarding Muthyalamma temple, Justice B Vijaysen Reddy has directed the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Center to take steps for removing the video of deity desecration from online platforms.
