Andhra Pradesh Supreme Court: Important rulings of 2021 (2023)

1.'Private sales cannot be criminalized': Andhra Pradesh High Court dismisses FIR party in Amaravati 'insider trading' case [Chekka Guru Murali Mohan & Anr. City Andra Pradesh]

The Supreme Court has dismissed several criminal cases alleging "insider trading" in land transactions in Amaravati. Judge Cheekati Manavendranath Roy noted that private sales cannot be criminalized and that the concept of "insider trading", which is essentially a stock exchange offense related to the sale and purchase of securities and bonds, cannot be applied to criminal offenses under the Indian Penal Code and cannot be read from section 420 of the IPC or any provision in the main lines of the Indian Penal Code.

2. [Dammalapati Srinivas ok. State Andhra Pradesh]

The Supreme Court has invalidated the FIR registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau against former Advocate General Damallapati Srinivas and others for alleged Amaravati land fraud. The FIR was registered alleging that Srinivas and other defendants bought large tracts of land in and around Amaravati before it was declared the new capital of Andhra Pradesh after the split.

Judge Cheekati Manavendranath Roy noted that Srinivas, like AAG, was not aware of any information regarding the exact location of the capital. When determining the location, determining the capital in order to know the exact location of the capital did not play a role.


3.Social media posts against judges could be construed as conspiracy and attack on institution: AP Supreme Court denies bail up to 5 years [Sudduluri Ajay Amruth @ Gowthami K v. State Andhra Pradesh]

The Supreme Court has refused to release five people on bail who were arrested for allegedly posting derogatory messages against Supreme Court and Supreme Court judges, noting that targeting judges on social media could be interpreted as a "conspiracy" and an attack on the entire institution. Judge D. Ramesz He also noted that the complaints against the judges fell within the scope of the Cortes' scandal.

Read also:Specify measures to prevent the spread of defamatory remarks and harassing threats affecting the judiciary: AP High Court v. CBI

4.Police cannot deprive a person of his right to vote if there is no registered case against him for a tort: ​​High Court of Andhra Pradesh [Gandham Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy en Anr. w. State Andhra Pradesh]

The Supreme Court noted that if no case had been registered against the petitioners for any unlawful act,applicants must not be unlawfully detained by defendant police officers, which may result in them being denied the right to vote on Election Day.

5.Sedition charge: Andhra Pradesh High Court grants bail to a suspended court official who expressed displeasure with the government. March [S. Ramakrishna in Andra Pradesh State]

The Supreme Court granted bail to a suspended bailiff who expressed displeasure with the way the government was being run and who was registered under Sections 124-A, 153, 153-A of the I.P.C. In a televised debate, the petitioner stated that he was ready to cut off the head of parliament.

Judge R. Raghunandan Rao released bail, noting that the petitioner was a probation officer and it was very unlikely that he would attempt to escape. Similarly, the Court noted that the offense was based on a statement made during a televised debate, which was recorded and could not be altered or tampered with, and that the 60-day period had already expired, so no decision had been made. any other manipulation or interference in the investigation.

6.Girlfriend or concubine not prosecuted U/S 498A IPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court [Anumala Aruna Deepika p. Stan Andhra Pradesh]

The Supreme Court has ruled that only a relative of the husband by blood or marriage is prosecutable under Section 498-A of the IPC (Cruelty to Wife). Judge Cheekati Manavendranath, in invalidating the FIR against the petitioner, noted that a girlfriend or concubine who is not related by blood or marriage is not related to her husband within the meaning of Section 498-A of the P.C.C.

7.The High Court of Andhra Pradesh issues guidelines for the prompt transfer of bail warrants [Korra Bhaskara Rao Vs. State Andhra Pradesh]

In granting bail to the accused under the NDPS Act, the Supreme Court noted the significant delay in issuing certified copies of arrest warrants. He notes that despite the conscious acknowledgment of a number of outstanding cases, staff shortages make it difficult to issue copies of orders in the short term.

Judge Lalitha Kanneganti suggested developing an alternative mechanism to address the plight of these detainees/defendants at trial, citing the Supreme Court's decision to allow the use of an electronic system calledFASTER(fast and secure transmission of electronic data) for sending electronically certified copies of orders.

8. [GRAMO. Veera Venkanna, w. State Andhra Pradesh]

The Supreme Court suspended the arrest of a man arrested for allegedly posting a comment on a WhatsApp and Facebook group against YS chief minister Jagan Mohan Reddy, who resorted to transformation, causing a loss of reputation as a tribal woman MLA. It was alleged that the petitioner, G. Veera Venkanna, made the comment in question to create strife between different groups and therefore a report was filed on offenses punishable under section 153A, 505(2) r/w 34 CIP.

While continuing the investigation of the case and the arrest of the petitioner in the case, Judge Cheekati Manavendranath Roy noted, "...prima facie, the petitioner could put forward strong arguments to justify the intervention of this court under Article 482 of the CrPC to examine in the main criminal case whether it is legitimate to prosecute the petitioner for the two crimes mentioned above, and whether the FIR is invalid or not."

9. [Bandi Parasuramudu p. State Andhra Pradesh]

The Supreme Court ordered the Director General of the State Police to order the officers of all police stations to prepare the first information reportI can not do itbe registered for proceedings under Sections 107 (Security of Peacekeeping Operations) and 145 (Proceedings where a land or water dispute may cause a breach of the peace) of the CrPC. Judge Cheekati Manavendranath Roy noted that the court had encountered several cases where the state police charged the F.I.R. for processes related to Articles 107 and 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court has therefore considered it necessary to take action tostop this practice.


10U/A 329 Ban on electoral disputes from courts replaces the powers of the Supreme Court Constitution U/A 226: Supreme Court of Andhra Pradesh [kRatna Prabha v. Election Commission of India]

The Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition on courts from hearing electoral disputes under Art. 329 of the Constitution supersedes the powers of the Supreme Court to issue orders under Art. 226 of the Constitution. This comment was made by the panel of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and M. Ganga Rao in a request to annul the vote in Tirupati district on April 17 due to fraudulent voting and seizure of the booth.

11Andhra Pradesh High Court annuls local authority elections as SEC failed to grant 4-week model code of conduct [Janasena v. State Election Commissioner]

The Supreme Court has annulled the elections in the Mandal Parishad Territorial Districts (MPTC) and Zilla Parishad Territorial Districts (ZPTC) on April 8 on the grounds that there was no mandatory four-week break in the model code of conduct between the election announcements and the election date .

Judge M. Satyanarayana Murthy ordered the SEC to issue a new notice to resume the MPTC and ZPTC election process from where it left off with a 4-week time frame for the MCC.

Its engine action

12Arrest of MP Andhr Krishnam Raju: Supreme Court PA starts insult Suo Moto for lack of medical examination order [In Re Letter, directed by B. Adinarayan Raov. state of Andhra Pradesh]

In the case related to the arrest of YSRCP MP K Raghu Rama Krishnam Raju, the Supreme Court has commencedyour turnprosecution for contempt against officers for disobeying orders issued by them to medically examine the detained legislator.

The Court of Justice Lalitha Kannengati and C Praveen Kumar also went so far as to state that the action of the Additional Advocate GeneralAt first sightdisparaging the "chutzpah and arrogance" he showed while making his arguments.

13Andhra Pradesh High Court Conducts Suo Moto Inquiry To Drop Cases Against Prime Minister; state objects

The Supreme Court tookyour turnnotice of the withdrawal of eleven criminal charges against YS Chief Minister Jagan Mohan Reddy. However, the state objected to the cases, stating that they could not be initiated by the Supreme Court in its administrative part.

Read also:Andhra Pradesh High Court Postpones Suo Moto Review Notice For Dropping Cases Against Prime Minister

14'Attacking judges has become a favorite pastime for some': AP Supreme Court orders removal of offensive content on social media [Her Motorcycle Contempt Case No. 501/2020]

Noting that “beating up judges has become a favorite hobby of some people,” Chief Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra and Judge Lalitha Kanneganti ordered Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and YouTube to remove content that was offensive to judges in no more than one period. 36 hours. The order has been approvedcontempt for your requestlast year against abusive and threatening messages on social media by some members of Andhra Pradesh's ruling party against Supreme Court judges.

Constitution and Fundamental Rights

15.Non-payment of contributions affects the right to dignity: Andhra Pradesh Supreme Court demands a financial report from the state [CK Yarram Reddy v Stan Andhra Pradesh]

The Supreme Court requested a report on the apparently "pathetic" financial situation of the state government, along with the reasons for the non-payment of two private contractors for the work they carried out for the Panchayat Raj and the Ministry of Rural Development. It noted that such non-payment violated the applicants' right to life and dignity, and thus violated Article 3 of the Convention. 21 of the Constitution.

sixteen.The state's constitutional duty is to protect the faith of believers and avoid bad feelings among them for not performing daily pujas: AP Supreme Court

The Supreme Court noted that it is the constitutional duty of the state to protect the faith of believers, to avoid bad feelings between them due to failure to perform daily pujas and Nitya nivedyam. Judge M. Ganga Rao further said that it is an unavoidable duty of the state government to ensure that the temple grounds are not flooded by seepage and seepage. The case concerned the Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swami Temple in Mattapalli village, Suryapet district.

17Unfortunately, even after 75 years of independence, people have problems with funerals: Andhra Pradesh High Court [Gottumukkala Rattaiah p. gottumukkala. State Andhra Pradesh]

"It is regrettable to note that even after 75 years of independent India, some sections of society even have difficulty organizing funerals, partly due to the lack of cemeteries and crematoriums in some cities.”, the Supreme Court noted when it ruled that the right to life guaranteed by art. 21 of the Constitution has a right not only to a living person, but also to his dead body. Judge Battu Devanand made the following observation when ruling on a court case challenging the right of the local government to propose to allocate part of a Hindu cemetery to a Christian cemetery.

18 [Shared by Siva Murali & Ors. w. Flat Andhra Pradesh]

The Supreme Court has ruled that the government's housing program, which grants housing only to women, is unconstitutional.“Reserving 100% of the housing allocation for women in the household is contrary to the overall idea of ​​equality. Not giving transsexuals a home by completely ignoring them would be tantamount to depriving them of their right to equalitynoted Judge M. Satyanarayana Murthy.


19 [Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt Against State Andhra Pradesh]

The Supreme Court has established that the Minimum Wage Act does not apply to temples or stray dogs. Under the Hindu and Charitable Institutions and Endowments Act 1987, the court noted that there is a difference between a temple and stray dogs.

“Mathematics is an institution run by a person whose main job is to teach, propagate religious philosophy, etc. worshipp," noted DVSS Judge Somayajulu, who accepted Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt's written petition challenging the minimum wage bills issued.

20Disputed signature cannot be compared with photocopy to establish authenticity: Andhra Pradesh Supreme Court [T. Lakshmi Theresamma against State Andhra Pradesh]

The Supreme Court ruled that comparing a disputed signature on a photocopy with an original signature is not punishable because there is room for a mechanical error or a faulty photocopy. Judge M. Satyanarayana Murthy noted:

“So such a comparison is not permitted by law because there is every possibility of changing the signatures due to the passage of time and there is every possibility of signing documents in disguise to obtain a positive opinion from an expert characterologist . But what is required by law is that any truly authentic document containing the signatures of the parties be recalled along with the contested signatures for comparison and opinion."

Covid-19 control

[Case title:Manda Kondaiah v. State Andhra Pradesh;bank:Chief Judge Arup Kumar Goswami and Judge C. Praveen Kumar]


In April, the Supreme Court ordered the state government to ensure that the administration is not caught by surprise if the situation worsens and patients are deprived of medical care and treatment. The Court also called on the government to continuously monitor the situation and prepare an action plan for the future, so that the authorities can effectively deal with the situation, even if the number of infected people continues to rise.

Read also:COVID19: Report on steps taken, testing facilities, availability of oxygen tanks, Remdesivir injections, etc.: AP High Court to State

22Andhra Pradesh High Court expresses displeasure with state's handling of Covid-19

In May, the Supreme Court expressed deep dissatisfaction with the authorities' handling of the country's Covid-19 situation. "The state must make every effort to ensure that these fundamental aspects, which contribute significantly to the management of Covid-19, are taken seriously and shortcomings are immediately corrected for the effective functioning of the system." noticed.

23Excessive fees charged by private hospitals to COVID19 patients: Andhra Pradesh High Court orders payment through nodal officers to keep check

In May, the Supreme Court ordered the state government to develop conditions for paying private hospital bills for Covid-19 patients through a Nodal official to prevent them from charging exorbitant fees. He agreed with the suggestion that instead of depositing money directly at the hospital counter, have it run through the Official Node Manager/Help Desk so that he can be consulted at this stage in case of overcharges. .

24Center allocation is not enough to treat patients with black ringworm: Andhra Pradesh High Court seeks answers from center

In June, the Supreme Court noted that the liposomal amphotericin B assigned to the state by the Center is not enough to treat patients with black ringworm. He therefore asked the national government to respond to the allocation to different states based on the number of patients. He also asked the state government to launch information campaigns highlighting the cause, effect and preventive measures to be taken to combat mucormycosis or black ringworm.

Read also:Andhra Pradesh HC seeks answers from the center on the administration of amphotericin B injections and the formation of PSA units

25'Is there a specific pattern of spread?': Andhra Pradesh Supreme Court asks state to give reasons for high COVID-19 cases in 3 districts

In July, the Tribunal noted an increase in Covid-19 cases in three specific districts of the state, namely East Godavari, West Godavari and Chittoor and asked the state government to respond to the case. A division bench composed of Chief Justice Arup Kumar Goswami and Justice Ninali Jayasurya ordered the authorities to give the state a positive district-level indicator to indicate whether there was a specific pattern causing the spread.

25Help for Prisoners: Release of all trial prisoners re-admitted to prisons on provisional bail - Andhra Pradesh HC

Following recommendations made by the High Power Committee during the Covid-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court has ordered the release of all convicts and prisoners awaiting temporary 90-day bail who are remanded in prison upon release. on temporary bail last year unless disqualified.

Classification bank composed ofJudge C Praveen Kumar and Judge Lalitha KannegantiIt also ordered the release of the remaining convicts and pre-trial detainees, who are incarcerated for crimes punishable by up to 7 years in prison and duly authorized to release based on last year's KPC resolution. However, the exception in such cases are persons who are criminals for the second time or those who are at risk of being prosecuted under art. 376 of the IPC and POCSO Act.


26Are tobacco products "foodstuffs" within the meaning of the Food Safety Act? The Andhra Pradesh High Court transfers the case to the District Court [Dasa Shekar p. State Andhra Pradesh]

The Supreme Court asked the District Court whether tobacco products could be considered "food" under the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006. Judge R. Raghunandan Rao, considering a series of written petitions, disagreed withindividual front bankconsiders that chewing tobacco, pan masala and khaini cannot be considered food under the Food Safety Act and as such the provisions of the Food Safety Act would not apply to these tobacco products.

Tobacco products, namely, chewing tobacco, pan masala or other chewing material containing tobacco as one of the ingredients (regardless of the name), gutka and tooth powder containing tobacco should be considered as food,the judge expressed his opinion, citing two Supreme Court rulings in the case of Pyarali K. Tejani v. Mahadeo Ramchandra Dange and Godawat Pan Masala Products I.P. limited, w. Indian Union. Taking into account a different position taken in an earlier ruling by one court, the judge has referred these cases back to the subdistrict court for re-examination.

27PA Supreme Court stays cases against 'three capitals' laws, recognizes bill to repeal contested laws

The Supreme Court has its seat in Asome written requestschallenging the PA All Regions Inclusive Development and Decentralization Act 2020 and the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development (Repeal) Act 2020.

Supreme Court composition Prashant Kumar Mishra, Justices M. Satyanarayana Murthy and D. VSS Somayajulu adjourned the hearinga bill passed by the state legislaturewhich seeks to repeal previous statutes passed by the state legislature and pave the way for a "three capitals" plan for the state.

It should be noted that the attorneys acting on behalf of the parties asked the Court whether the claims had been rendered ineffective, or whether only some of the remedies sought herein had been rendered ineffective by the passage of the bill. After hearing them, the court stated that until the Voivode's consent to the bill was obtained, the issue of retaining all or part of the written motions could not be resolved.

28PIL is looking for a fiber optic network and IT infrastructure. For District Courts: Andhra Pradesh High Court is seeking Center, State Government. Answer

The bench of Chief Justice Arup Kumar Goswami and Judge Ninali Jayasurya has requested responses from central and state authorities in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition on a dedicated fiber optic network with IT infrastructure for district courts and Mofussil. According to the Supreme Court website, the case was last joined on 29 October and adjourned at the petitioner's request.


What is the 8 1 decision of the Supreme Court in 2023? ›

DECISION: 6/23/2023: In an 8-1 decision, the Court's majority said Texas and Louisiana lacked Article III standing to challenge the Biden administration's immigration-enforcement policy. Scott Bomboy is the editor in chief of the National Constitution Center.

What was the Supreme Court decision 6 30 23? ›


The court on June 30 dealt a blow to LGBT rights by ruling that the constitutional right to free speech allows certain businesses to refuse to provide services for same-sex weddings despite state anti-discrimination law.

Which is the most powerful Supreme Court in the world? ›

Scholars have hailed India's Supreme Court as the most powerful in the world - and not without reason.

What was the Supreme Court decision on 6 27 23? ›

While the Court does not adopt a test by which state court interpretations of state law can be measured in cases implicating the Elections Clause, state courts may not transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review such that they arrogate to themselves the power vested in state legislatures to regulate federal ...

What did the Supreme Court rule on 6 29 23? ›

“Today, the Supreme Court upheld the 14th Amendment rights of Asian-Americans and ruled that Harvard and the University of North Carolina's explicit and egregious policies of racially discriminating against Asian-Americans and other students are unconstitutional,” he said.

What cases will the Supreme Court hear 2023? ›

2023-2024 Term
  • Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer. ...
  • Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP. ...
  • Brown v. United States. ...
  • Campos-Chaves v. Garland. ...
  • Carnahan v. ...
  • Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. ...
  • Culley v. ...
  • Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v.

What is the rule 35 of the Supreme Court? ›

Death, Substitution, and Revivor; Public Officers. 1. If a party dies after the filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari, or after the filing of a notice of appeal, the authorized representative of the deceased party may appear and, on motion, be substituted as a party.

What is the case to be heard by the Supreme Court on Monday February 27th 2023? ›

Monday, February 27, 2023

David Fox Dubin v. United States. Certiorari to the C. A. 5th Circuit.

Who won 29 of the 32 argued before the U.S. Supreme Court? ›

Marshall became one of the nation's leading attorneys. He argued 32 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, winning 29. Some of his notable cases include: Smith v.

Who is the best court in the world? ›

The International Court of Justice, also known as the ICJ and the World Court, is the world's highest court. Its role is to give advisory opinions on matters of international legal issues and settle disputes between states.

Who is the biggest court in the world? ›

The International Court of Justice (ICJ; French: Cour internationale de justice; CIJ), also called the World Court, is one of the six principal organs of the United Nations (UN). It settles disputes between states in accordance with international law and gives advisory opinions on international legal issues.

Who is higher than the Supreme Court? ›

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States. Article III of the U.S. Constitution created the Supreme Court and authorized Congress to pass laws establishing a system of lower courts.

What was the Supreme Court decision in June 2023? ›

In June 2023, the Supreme Court ruled on the use of race in college admissions, significantly limiting how colleges consider race as a factor in the admissions process.

What was the landmark US Supreme Court case decided on May 17? ›

On May 17, 1954, a decision in the Brown vs. Board of Education case declared the “separate but equal” doctrine unconstitutional. This landmark ruling gave LDF its most celebrated victory in a long, storied history of fighting for civil rights and marked a defining moment in US history.

What did the Supreme Court overturn on May 17 1954? ›

The decision of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka on May 17, 1954 is perhaps the most famous of all Supreme Court cases, as it started the process ending segregation. It overturned the equally far-reaching decision of Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896.

Is the US Supreme Court decision final? ›

When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court.

Who is the Chief Justice of the United States now 2023? ›

John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States,

was born in Buffalo, New York, January 27, 1955. He married Jane Sullivan in 1996 and they have two children - Josephine and Jack. He received an A.B. from Harvard College in 1976 and a J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1979.

What cases are still pending in the Supreme Court? ›

Significant U.S. Supreme Court Decisions Still Pending
  • Biden v. Nebraska. ...
  • Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina & Students for Fair Admissions v. ...
  • Moore v. Harper. ...
  • 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. ...
  • Smith v. United States. ...
  • Arizona v. ...
  • Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. ...
  • Mallory v.
Jun 7, 2023


Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Nathanael Baumbach

Last Updated: 01/23/2024

Views: 5975

Rating: 4.4 / 5 (55 voted)

Reviews: 86% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Nathanael Baumbach

Birthday: 1998-12-02

Address: Apt. 829 751 Glover View, West Orlando, IN 22436

Phone: +901025288581

Job: Internal IT Coordinator

Hobby: Gunsmithing, Motor sports, Flying, Skiing, Hooping, Lego building, Ice skating

Introduction: My name is Nathanael Baumbach, I am a fantastic, nice, victorious, brave, healthy, cute, glorious person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.