Medigadda drone case: Telangana HC quashes FIR against KTR

TNN / Apr 21, 2025, 23:53 IST

Text Size

Small
Medium
Large

Medigadda drone case: Telangana HC quashes FIR against KTR

Hyderabad: In a relief to BRS working president KT Rama Rao, the Telangana high court on Monday quashed the FIR registered against him at Mahadevpur police station for flying a drone camera over the Medigadda barrage without permission. The court also quashed FIRs registered against former MLAs Gandra Venkata Ramana Reddy and Balka Suman.
Dismissing the FIRs, Justice K Lakshman of the Telangana high court said that the Medigadda barrage is not notified as a prohibited area under the Aircraft Act and hence, visiting the barrage without permission cannot be termed a crime.
It may be recalled that based on a complaint from an irrigation engineer, the police booked a case against the BRS leaders on July 29, 2024. The court also expressed doubts over the delay in lodging the complaint. "The complaint was filed with an unexplained delay of three days as the leaders reportedly visited the barrage on July 26," the judge said.
The complainant initially said he came to know about the visit through a news channel, and later filed a complaint after obtaining consent from the higher ups in the irrigation department. He should have complained immediately if he felt that there was a threat to the safety of the barrage, the judge said.

HC notice to govt on SC categorisation
The Telangana high court on Monday issued notices to the state govt seeking its stand within six weeks on a writ petition filed against the Telangana Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2025. The division bench, comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara, was dealing with a petition filed by one K Manga.
The petitioner urged the court to direct the state govt to introduce 'creamy layer' for reservations amongs Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Davinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2025). She submitted that the present act enacted by the state government is contrary to the law declared by the Supreme Court, and thus is liable to be struck down.

End of Article