Telangana High Court halts arrest of KT Rama Rao in Formula-E case
Senior Counsel CS Sundaram, representing KT Rama Rao, argued that the Anti-Corruption Bureau's case against his client was "politically motivated." He emphasized that there was no evidence of criminal misconduct and pointed out that the First Information Report (FIR) was filed after an unusually long delay of 14 months.
By Legal Correspondent
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Friday granted interim relief to BRS leader KT Rama Rao barring his arrest in the Formula E race corruption case until December 30. Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar, while granting the relief, also allowed the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) to continue its investigation into the matter. KTR, the working president of the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) and Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA), had moved the High Court in a lunch motion seeking to quash the First Information Report (FIR) registered against him. The FIR alleges that KTR, during his tenure as Minister, misused government funds in connection with the Formula E race held in Hyderabad in 2023.
The ACB registered the case accusing KTR of directing the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) to pay Rs 55 crore to a foreign company in violation of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) guidelines. The FIR filed under Sections 13(1)(a), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 409 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, claims that the money was transferred improperly, causing financial misconduct.
Represented by Senior Counsel Aryaman Sundaram, KTR’s legal team argued that the FIR was politically motivated and lacked sufficient evidence to support the serious charges. In his submission, Sundaram emphasized that the case stemmed from a procedural lapse, not corruption. He also pointed out that no preliminary inquiry had been conducted before the FIR was filed, despite a 14-month delay.
“We had to safeguard the event (Formula E). The worst case against the petitioner is that he did not follow procedure. That’s the only charge,” Sundaram told the court, adding that there was no evidence to suggest criminal misconduct by KTR. Sundaram further argued that the FIR did not meet the legal requirements for charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He stated that no allegations of financial gain or enrichment had been made against KTR. The legal team also highlighted that the Formula E event had generated significant profit for the state government, amounting to Rs 110 crore.
Sundaram also pointed out that a tri-partite agreement had been signed on October 25, 2022, between the Formula E organizers, the state government, and a sponsor for a four-year period. Following the sponsor’s withdrawal in October 2023, the Telangana government stepped in to cover the required funds, including the disputed Rs 55 crore payment. Sundaram argued that the funds were transferred based on the existing agreement and that the government’s actions were aimed at ensuring the success of the event, rather than involving any wrongdoing.
One of the key points raised by KTR’s defense was the delay in registering the FIR. The complaint was lodged on December 18, 2024, and the FIR was filed just the following day, suggesting a lack of proper investigation before taking legal action. Sundaram further argued that the entire case appeared to be part of a political vendetta against KTR, given the timing of the complaint and the absence of a prior inquiry. He cited the Supreme Court’s rulings in Lalita Kumari and Charan Singh cases, which require a preliminary inquiry in corruption cases before filing an FIR, especially when there is a significant delay. Sundaram also referenced the Bajan Lal judgment, arguing that the court must look at the surrounding circumstances, which pointed to political motives rather than genuine legal concerns.
The Advocate General, A. Sudarshan Reddy, opposed KTR’s petition, stating that a preliminary inquiry had been conducted by the government before the FIR was registered. Reddy argued that the FIR does not need to be a comprehensive document at this stage and that all irregularities would be revealed during the course of the investigation. He asserted that the charges against KTR were not politically motivated and that the state had sufficient grounds to pursue the case. Reddy also argued that KTR should seek anticipatory bail under Section 438 or 439 of the CrPC rather than attempting to quash the FIR under Section 482. He requested that the court not to grant any relief at this stage.
Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar questioned the Advocate General about the specifics of the charges and the ingredients of the alleged offences. The judge noted that the investigation could proceed, but directed that no arrest be made until December 30, 2024, offering temporary relief to KTR. The court further instructed the state government to file its counter-affidavit by December 27 and scheduled the matter for a hearing by the regular bench on December 30.
