HYDERABAD: Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court has directed that while Kalvakuntla Taraka Rama Rao (KTR), MLA and Working President of the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS), cannot have an advocate seated beside him during the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) investigation, one advocate may be allowed to observe the proceedings from a visible distance.
The petitioner's counsel has been asked by the court to provide the names of three advocates from which one wil be selected for the purpose. The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) has been instructed to provide necessary instructions to facilitate this arrangement.
The High Court referred to a similar order passed in the Y.S. Avinash Reddy case, stating that a comparable directive could be issued later in the day.
KTR had filed a Lunch Motion Petition seeking the court’s intervention to permit the presence of his advocate during the investigation related to FIR No.12/RCO-CIU-ACB-2024, registered by the ACB. The investigation is scheduled for January 9, 2025, or subsequent dates.
The FIR was lodged on December 19, 2024, based on a complaint from the Special Chief Secretary to the Government, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, and the Metropolitan Commissioner of HMDA. KTR has been named as Accused No. 1 in the case, which involves alleged offenses under Sections 13(1)(a) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 409 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
KTR's petition challenged the ACB's refusal to allow the continuous presence of his advocate during the investigation, terming it arbitrary, illegal, and violative of his constitutional rights under Articles 21 and 22. The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court has established legal precedents ensuring the right to legal representation during investigations, emphasizing that this right is essential for a fair trial and justice.
Justice K. Lakshman stated that while an advocate’s presence is permissible, it should be limited to a visible distance to ensure that the investigation proceeds without interference. The petitioner’s counsel was directed to submit three names for the court to select one advocate who would be present during the investigation.
The matter will be taken up for further hearing at 4:00 PM for final orders.