Dismissed
Oruganti Udayakumar v. The Union of India
Telangana HCPIL/187/2012
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY…
What the court decided
AI extract
THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
/
HIGH COURT FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE FIRSTDAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLETHE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRASHARMA AND THE HONOURABLESRIJUSTICEABHINANDKUMAR SHAVILI
PUBLIC IN REST LITIGATIONNO:187oF 2012
Between:
oruoanti udavakumar,S/o. o.V. Krishna_lvlurthy, Agedabout 31 ye-ars,.occ: x;;xui;.H;,il'.rl.rlj.iij_r:+ire,ii.i. noro, rir.rpathr.pr-esenuyFl/o Jain chambers, i):;;6'sl"BbE'iili r.r'zb:,-ii'irl"i,oJp, bpJnj"..,ritat' crosd Road' Hvderabad'
...PETITIONER
AND
.,.RES'ONDENTS
petition Under Article 226 of lhe Constitution oflndia praying that in the circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybe pleasedtolssueawritinthenatureofaWritoflvlandamusoranyother appropriatewrit,direction,orderorordersdeclaringtheunilateral,arbitrary actions of theun-officials Respondents 7 to 10 in publishingthe articulatedNews Items/Articleswhich are . specifically designedfor thepurpose of
sensationalizationetc., withoutobtainingauthentic confirmationfrom the authentic sourcesleads to confusion among the common public particularlyin relating to the investigationprocess of the statutory investigative agencies and also about theadministrationof criminal justice as the same is amountsto violationofFundamentalRightsguaranteedunderArtiolesl9,2lofthe constitution oflndia and consequentlydirect the Respondents1, 2 to frame the Guidelines torestrainthe print mediafrom publishing specifically, articulatedand designed Newsltems/Articlesfor the purpose of mere se nsationalizationetc without obtainingproperconfirmationfrom the authentic sourcesof the lnvestigative Agencies.
PILM .NO oF 2012
Petition under Section151 CPCprayingthatin the circumstances statedin the affidavit filedin support of the petition, the High Court maybe pleased to expedite thehearingof the main writ petition in view of facts and circumstances involved in thelist by fixlng early date.
Counsel for thePetitioner:SRl. MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
Counsel for RespondentNo.1: SRI NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARARAO' ASSISTANT SOLICITORGENERAL
counsel for theRespondent Nos.4 & 5: SPLP P FoR cBl SRI K.SURENDER
Counsel fortheRespondent Nos.3 & 6: GPFOR HOME
Counsel for the RespondentNos.2, 7 to 10: NONE APPEARED
The Court madethe following:ORDER
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEFJUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
and
THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE BHINAND KT]MAR SHAVILI Public lnttrcst Litir,irtit-,rn No.l87 of 2012
gllbi @rlht t,r'h/. th Chi.[I'ti,cSa/iih (.h/drd.ttund)
Learned counsel for the peridoner prays for withdrawal of the
present Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
The PIL is, accotdingly, dismissed as withdrawn.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, stand dismissed.
SD/-B,S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT-REGISTRAR
/
/iTRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER'aD
\
Hyderabad. [OUT]
CHR sw t\.-'
q
HIGH COURT
DATED:01 10412022
ORDER
P.l.L.No.187 of 2012
1 gi Silp6
( a)
)
IJ 2I JUt'l 2t]2 a
5
a
)r
,: OE SPAT ctrt
DISMISSING THE WRITPETITION AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS
1
(D
^.1),/? <br>
Oruoanti Udavakumar
Union of India
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
Ministry of Home Affairs
Satish Chandrasharma
Abhinand Kumar Shavili
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court