Telangana High Court initiates criminal contempt case against BJP MP M Raghunandan Rao
Raghunandan Rao questioned the court's decision to grant a "stay of demolition" concerning a petition filed by actor Akkineni Nagarjuna's N Convention via a House Motion
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has taken strong exception to remarks made by M Raghunandan Rao, the BJP MP from Medak, during a recent press conference.
A two judge division bench consisting of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao has initiated a suo moto criminal contempt case against the MP based on a letter from a single judge of the court.
The letter reveals that during a press conference on August 24, Raghunandan Rao questioned the court’s decision to grant a “stay of demolition” concerning a petition filed by actor Akkineni Nagarjuna’s N Convention via a House Motion.
He reportedly raised concerns about how the court could issue a stay when a previous ruling in 2014 had directed the demolition of the same property.
The MP’s comments included assertions that judges should not rush to make decisions based solely on House Motions and criticized the judicial process as “injudicious.”
Raghunandan Rao’s remarks were described as making omnibus allegations against the judiciary, including claims that stay orders are often granted without proper scrutiny of the circumstances. He questioned the efficiency of the court’s Registry in listing cases and called on the Chief Justice to address these issues.
The letter further noted that when a reporter expressed concern over the MP’s comments, Raghunandan Rao defended himself by claiming he had the right to speak freely and insisted that his remarks were not disrespectful to the judiciary, but rather a call for judges to better understand the law.
The single judge’s letter concluded that Raghunandan Rao harbors a “deep-seated loathing” toward the judiciary and was intent on scandalizing the courts in public discourse. The judge expressed concern that such conduct undermined the dignity of the judiciary and could hinder the Rule of Law.
After reviewing the letter’s contents, the panel determined that the MP’s actions amount to prima facie criminal contempt and ordered notices to be issued to him.
