Telangana High Court upholds reconduct of Group I examination

SIBY JEYYA
On Wednesday, the telangana High Court's division bench, made up of Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili and Justice J Anil Kumar, upheld the single judge's directive to hold a new Group I examination. The State had filed an appeal against the decision, claiming that thousands of applicants would suffer as a result of the irrational concerns of a small number of petitioners. According to the State, there is no danger of impersonation or malpractice if biometrics are not used.

According to the State, even the OMR sheets contained barcodes to accurately check the candidates' credentials. The court, after hearing the opposing arguments from both sides, determined that the method and procedure specified in the notice and online note could not be disregarded. As a result, the bench rejected the State government's appeal.

‘Detention by NIA illegal’


The division bench comprising Justice K lakshman and Justice K sujana held the detention of Dubashi Devender by the National Investigation Agency. The court ruled that the NIA should follow the legal procedure because it is a top-tier investigating agency. The petitioner claims that while her husband was doing his exams at the government college in Siddpet town, he was unlawfully imprisoned by the NIA. After learning that her husband was being held at the mulugu police station and that plans had been made to transport him to Chhattisgarh, she filed a habeas corpus plea and worried that the authorities could kill her husband. She further disclosed to the court that she was a mother to a six-month-old kid who was reliant on the detenue.

The detenue was properly taken into custody by issuing a 41-A notice in a 2019 case registered at Nagarnar police station in Bastar of Chhattisgarh, according to Deputy Solicitor General of india Gadi praveen Kumar, who was speaking on behalf of the NIA. According to the NIA, the detenue served as a messenger between the state's frontal groups and the outlawed cpi (Maoist) Party. Additionally, it stated that the remand had to be contested and that the habeas petition should be denied because he was now detained at Jagdalpur Jail.

However, as noted by the petitioner's attorney M. Venkanna, the bench found several flaws and inconsistencies in the arrest procedure used by the NIA, including: failing to notify family members or close relatives of the arrest; failing to provide documentation proving the service of a 41 A notice; and failing to explain why the arrest of the detainee took place more than two years after the crime was reported. It was mentioned that serving 41 A notices for violations carrying a 10-year sentence. While the arrest Memo indicated the location of the arrest as Pattabhipuram, guntur District, the 41-A notice indicated the location as NIA Camp Office, police Head Quarters, Mangalagiri, Vijayawada. The petitioner stated detention of the petitioner from the test hall at siddipet and provided the attendance record of the exam at the government college there on june 16, 17, and 18.

The bench ruled that his imprisonment was unlawful and ordered his release as a result. While adjudicating the matter, the bench gave the NIA freedom to undertake its inquiry fully in compliance with the law.






For more interesting updates click and follow Indiaherald WhatsApp channel

Find Out More:

Related Articles: