Do you still believe in election promises, High Court asks Telangana activists

The Telangana High Court questioned the enforceability of election promises while hearing a plea by Telangana activists seeking housing plots and pension, directing the State government to clarify its stand and warning that granting such relief could open a Pandora’s box

Hyderabad: Justice B Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court on Monday questioned the very basis of seeking enforcement of election promises and directed the State government to place its stand on a petition seeking housing plots and pension for Telangana activists.

Hearing a writ petition filed by Telangana activists Gollapalli Nagaraju, K Yadagiri and others, the Judge expressed scepticism over relying on political promises made during elections. “How can election promises be enforced? Do you still believe in them?” the court asked, while examining the maintainability of the petition.

---

The petitioners had approached the High Court contending that the government had failed to fulfil assurances made to those who participated in the Telangana movement. They relied on promises made by the Congress party to provide 250 square yards of house site and pension to Telangana activists after coming to power.

Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Karunakara Reddy submitted that the petitioners had actively participated in the Telangana movement, risked their lives, faced police cases, lost employment opportunities and spent years litigating in courts. He argued that despite the formation of the State 12 years ago, activists facing criminal cases during the agitation had not received any meaningful support. He further contended that certain benefits had already been extended to a few activists through government orders, which were not made public.

The court, however, raised several pointed questions. It asked whether the government had taken any formal decision or issued any government orders recognising Telangana activists or extending benefits to them. It also questioned the feasibility of granting such relief, observing that lakhs of people had participated in the movement.

“If an order is passed, it would open Pandora’s box. How many people can be given 250 square yards of land?” the court asked. Drawing a distinction between freedom fighters and political movements, the court remarked, “Are you freedom fighters who fought against the Nizam? Why should such benefits be given?”

It also referred to incidents during the agitation, including activists locking the gates of the then combined High Court and facing contempt proceedings, and questioned how the State could identify and compensate everyone involved. After hearing the submissions, the court directed the State government to state its position on the issue and adjourned the matter to February 23.