Telangana HC to hear Congress leader Pawan Khera’s plea for interim protection
Congress leader Pawan Khera has approached the Telangana High Court seeking interim protection from arrest in a case registered by the Assam Police. The case involves allegations of defamation, forgery, and criminal conspiracy linked to his remarks about Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma’s wife, Riniki Bhuyan.
By Legal Correspondent
Hyderabad: Justice K. Sujana of the Telangana High Court is set to hear on Thursday a petition filed by Congress leader Pawan Khera seeking interim protection from arrest in connection with a criminal case registered by the Assam Police.
The case has been registered against Khera on allegations of defamation, forgery, and criminal conspiracy, following his public statements concerning Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma’s wife, Riniki Bhuyan Sharma, in which he alleged that she held multiple foreign passports and undisclosed overseas assets.
In his petition before the High Court, Khera has sought transit anticipatory bail, contending that such protection is necessary to allow him to approach the competent courts in the State of Assam for appropriate relief.
The matter is expected to come up for consideration before Justice K. Sujana on Thursday.
Media Owners secure status quo against Telangana’s new Ad rules
Justice N. V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court granted interim relief by directing maintenance of status quo in a batch of writ petitions challenging G.O. Ms. No. 84 dated March 4, which introduced the Outdoor Advertisement Policy – CURE 2026.
The writ petitions were filed by the Telangana Outdoor Media Owners Association, represented by its Secretary Konkala Ramesh, along with other stakeholders in the outdoor advertising sector.
The petitioners questioned the legality, implementation, and procedural fairness of the policy. Senior counsel J. Prabhakar appearing for the petitioners contended that the impugned Government Order was issued without due consideration of representations submitted by stakeholders and in violation of principles of natural justice.
It was argued that despite earlier directions from the Court, no meaningful opportunity for a hearing was afforded before finalising the policy, which has far-reaching consequences for the industry.
Taking note of the submissions, the Court observed that the matter involves issues of wider public importance impacting a long-standing industry. The Court directed the respondents to file their counters and ordered that the status quo as on date shall be maintained insofar as the petitioners are concerned, pending further adjudication.
HC allows BRS meet in Wanaparthy
Justice E. V. Venugopal of the Telangana High Court allowed a writ petition filed by BRS leader A. Gattu Yadav, District President of Wanaparthy, and set aside the cancellation of permission granted for conducting a public meeting, holding that the action of the authorities was unsustainable in law.
The Court was dealing with a writ petition, wherein the petitioner challenged the proceedings dated 07.04.2026 issued by the police cancelling earlier permission granted for a public meeting scheduled on 09.04.2026 at Dharna Chowk, Gollapally Village, Revally Mandal.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that the permission had initially been granted on 03.04.2026 subject to conditions, but was abruptly cancelled without affording any opportunity for a hearing.
On the other hand, the Government Pleader justified the cancellation on the basis of intelligence inputs indicating a likely gathering far exceeding permitted limits, raising concerns about law and order, crowd management, and potential violence.
After considering the rival submissions, the Court observed that the impugned proceedings did not disclose any specific, valid, or cogent reasons except a general reference to maintaining public order.
The Court held that such vague reasoning cannot justify curtailment of fundamental rights. It further noted that if large participation was anticipated, it was incumbent upon the authorities to make adequate arrangements rather than impose a complete prohibition.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned proceedings and permitted the petitioner to conduct the public meeting on 09.04.2026 between 5 pm and 9 pm, subject to strict adherence to the conditions already imposed.
