HC rebukes NIA for adopting inconsistent legal stance
A bench of the Telangana High Court issued a sharp rebuke to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for adopting conflicting legal positions across different courts to suit its interests. The bench, consisting of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka, made these observations while considering an application for condonation of a 390-day delay in challenging orders issued by a special court.
The case relates to the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to appeals filed under Section 21(5) of the NIA Act. SM Rizwan Akhtar, counsel for the appellant, and Vishnuvardhan Reddy, Special Public Prosecutor for the NIA, presented their arguments before the court. After reviewing rulings from several High Courts, the bench concluded that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is indeed applicable to such appeals.
In a pointed critique, the judges highlighted what they described as the NIA’s “diametrically-opposite stances,” referring to the agency’s practice of taking inconsistent legal positions in different courts. The court referred to this shifting approach as a “flip-flop,” calling into question the fairness and integrity of the NIA’s legal strategy.
The Bench invoked Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality before the law, emphasizing that both the NIA and the accused should be treated equally under the law. The court strongly criticized the statutory barriers imposed by Section 21(5) of the NIA Act, terming it a “Bar to Justice” when applied inconsistently, and introduced the concept of a “Justice Bar” in their judgment.
In their ruling, the judges favored a purposive interpretation of the law, prioritising constitutional protection over a rigid, literal reading of the statute.
Fresh notification for Group-I illegal, say petitioners
Petitioners challenging the notification issued by the Telangana Public Service Commission (TGPSC) for conducting the Group-I preliminary examination on Friday told the Telangana High Court that the fresh notification was illegal since the panel did not cancel its earlier notification dated April 26.
In their plea before Justice Pulla Karthik, the petitioners sought a stay on Notification No. 2/2024, dated February 19, through which the TGPSC held the preliminary examination. They contended that the new notification, which includes additional vacancies, should be set aside, and the exam should be conducted based on the original notification.
Senior counsel Jonnalagadda Sudheer contended that the 503 vacancies notified in the first notification should be limited to candidates who participated in the initial exam, which was cancelled. He also raised concerns over errors in the answer key of the Group-I preliminary examination.
HC rejects Puvvada’s plea to quash FIR filed in April
Justice K Lakshman of the Telangana High Court refused to grant relief to former minister Puvvada Ajay, who sought court direction to quash an FIR filed against him in 2014. The FIR was registered at the Khanapuram police station in Khammam on April 28, 2014, based on a complaint filed by an election officer, accusing Puvvada of distributing cricket kits and liquor to influence voters in 2014 elections.
In response, Puvvada Ajay had filed a petition in the High Court, seeking to have the FIR quashed, claiming that he was no way related to the said incident. He argued that the cricket kits were seized from a nearby hostel and that he was not present at the location when the alleged incident took place. Despite these claims, the trial court had issued an interim stay order on the trial in 2014.
However, the high court recently took up the matter. After reviewing the arguments, Justice K Lakshman decided not to dismiss the FIR, effectively allowing the investigation to proceed.