Telangana High Court Dismisses PIL Against Smita Sabharwal

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Monday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking action against Smita Sabharwal, Member Secretary of the Telangana State Finance Commission, over comments she made on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter).

The PIL, filed by social activist Vasundhara Koppula, alleged that Sabharwal’s remarks were insensitive and offensive toward the differently-abled community.

The bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao, ruled that the PIL lacked merit and did not serve the public interest. The court determined that Sabharwal’s comments fell within her right to free expression as a citizen.

According to the petitioner’s claims, on July 21, Sabharwal posted comments on X questioning the capability of differently-abled individuals in high-stakes professions like pilots, surgeons, and IAS officers. The petitioner argued that these remarks were derogatory and violated the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, which are meant to uphold the dignity and integrity of public servants.

In her social media post, Sabharwal expressed the view that differently-abled individuals should not be assigned certain critical roles and opposed reservations or quotas for them. The petitioner claimed that these comments were both legally and ethically inappropriate. However, the bench concluded that the PIL did not present a substantial public interest issue and found no violation of specific legal provisions that would require judicial intervention, leading to the dismissal of the case.

High Court Orders Principal Secretary (Home) to Comply with Court Directive

Hyderabad: Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court has directed Dr. Jitender, Principal Secretary (Home), to appear in court if he fails to comply with a court order issued in December 2023.

This directive follows a contempt petition filed by Ch. Satish, a candidate who was denied employment as a police constable despite a favorable court ruling.

Satish, who had been selected for the position of police constable, was initially denied the appointment due to his involvement in a criminal case involving moral turpitude. He had been charged with murder but was later honorably acquitted. Following this, Satish challenged the denial of his employment through a writ petition.

The High Court ruled in Satish’s favor, directing the authorities to grant him the employment he was wrongfully denied. However, despite the court order, Satish was not offered the position, leading him to file a contempt petition for non-compliance. Justice T. Madhavi Devi granted Dr. Jitender a four-week period to implement the court’s order, failing which he will be required to appear personally in court to explain the non-compliance.