June 23 – June 29, 2025
Nominal Index:
VISWANATHAN KRISHNA MURTHY v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 119
Sankarappa v. APSPDCL Chairman M D Tirupati 2 and Others: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 120
Kalimela Kiran Kumar v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 121
Killo Subbarao and Others v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 122
Sri Aadi Varahi Shakti Temple Belief and Others v. The State Of Ap and Others: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 123
Judgments/Ultimate Orders
Case Quantity: Prison Petition No.6783/2022
Case Title: VISWANATHAN KRISHNA MURTHY v STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 119
The Andhra Pradesh Excessive Court docket has held {that a} transgender lady in heterosexual marriage can file a grievance in opposition to her husband and in-laws beneath Part 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa emphasised {that a} transgender lady, figuring out as a feminine and dwelling in a conjugal relationship with a person, can’t be excluded from the safety of legal guidelines meant to safeguard ladies from dowry-related harassment and cruelty.
“A transwoman in a heterosexual relationship, can’t be disadvantaged of her proper to lodge a grievance in opposition to her husband or the kinfolk of her husband,” it noticed.
Case Quantity: WRIT PETITION NO: 41332/2016
Case Title: Sankarappa v. APSPDCL Chairman M D Tirupati 2 and Others
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 120
The Andhra Pradesh Excessive Court docket has rejected the plea of a retired worker of the Andhra Pradesh Southern Energy Distribution Firm Restricted (APSPDCL), who sought alteration in his Date of Beginning (DOB) within the official service data, after having acquired all promotions and repair advantages primarily based on the identical date.
On this regard, Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam noticed,
“Petitioner on the fag finish of his profession when his superannuation was approaching, most well-liked representations to the respondent authorities, by merely blaming the respondents as if his Date of Beginning had been modified. However, the petitioner just isn’t in a position to substantiate his assertion concerning the alleged alteration of the entry of the Date of Beginning within the service Document. Within the absence of the prerequisite foundational details concerning his case, it isn’t apt for this Court docket to enter an enviornment which is only a disputed query of reality, whereas exercising the powers beneath Article 226 of the Structure of India. It is usually evident from the document that, didn’t increase any objection with respect to the Seniority Listing ready by the respondents’ company even right this moment. However for the sake of extension of his providers after 28 years of service from the date of becoming a member of, he’s disputing his date of delivery within the service register.”
Commenting that the case comes inside the ambit of doctrine of ‘Approbate and Reprobate’, the Court docket added,
“The petitioner himself produced his Academic Certificates issued by the involved District Schooling Officer on his personal volition, through which his Date of Beginning is acknowledged as 10.11.1958, which correlates with the model of the respondents Company. However, on the fag finish of his profession, he has taken the plea that’s date of delivery is 25.08.1961, in order to increase his service and obtain its consequential advantages. Thus, the case of the petitioner immediately comes beneath the ambit of ‘Approbate and Reprobate’, which typically phrases means one can not make the most of one half whereas rejecting the remainder. In different phrases, an individual can’t be allowed to have the benefit of a doc whereas difficult the identical. In such an occasion, the petitioner both has to affirm or disaffirm the mentioned transaction.”
Case Quantity: WP No. 2618 of 2024
Case Title: Kalimela Kiran Kumar v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 121
The Andhra Pradesh Excessive Court docket allowed a person’s plea in opposition to the choice of the Waqf Tribunal which had adjudicated on a go well with regarding a disputed land, although a civil court docket had determined the matter 45 years in the past giving a discovering that the disputed property just isn’t a waqf property.
The court docket thus mentioned that the Waqf Tribunal doesn’t have the ability to adjudicate any case which is the subject-matter of a go well with filed earlier than the civil court docket earlier than the graduation of the Waqf Act, or any enchantment/decree arising out of such a go well with.
Reiterating that the Tribunal can not entertain a go well with looking for declaration of title over the land which was already adjudicated upon by a reliable Civil Court docket, Justice Subba Reddy Satti held,
“When a reliable Civil Court docket recorded a discovering in an earlier go well with that the property doesn’t belong to the wakf establishment, the current go well with filed by the wakf establishment after a lapse of 41⁄2 a long time for declaration of title, within the thought of opinion of this Court docket, just isn’t maintainable given Part 7(5) of the Act. The current Mutavalli, the son of the sooner Mutavalli who misplaced the go well with on an earlier event, awoke from deep slumber and filed the current go well with after 41⁄2 a long time. As soon as Part 7(5) of the Act comes into motion, the Tribunal, at no stretch of creativeness, can proceed the go well with on its file for additional adjudication. The corollary could be that the tribunal lacks jurisdiction, and therefore, a writ of prohibition could be issued within the details of this case.”
‘Ganja’ Seeds, Leaves Not Banned Under NDPS Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Quantity: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5306/2025
Case Title: Killo Subbarao and Others v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 122
In a judgement dated 23.06.2025, the Andhra Pradesh Excessive Court docket has held that the definition of ‘Ganja’ beneath the Narcotic Medication and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), is proscribed to the flowering or fruiting tops of the hashish plant, and excludes from its ambit the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops.
Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa defined,
“As rightly put by the realized counsel for the petitioner, the definition of Ganja beneath NDPS Act takes in its ambit solely the flowering or fruiting tops of hashish plant and excludes the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops. Thus, the definition of ‘Ganja’ is restricted and it doesn’t embody the seeds and leaves of Ganja plant.”
Case Quantity: WRIT PETITION NO: 15594/2025
Case Title: Sri Aadi Varahi Shakti Temple Belief and Others v. The State Of Ap and Others
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 123
The Andhra Pradesh Excessive Court docket has granted permission to a belief which manages Sri Aadi Varahi Shakti Temple (petitioner) positioned in Tiruchanur close to Tirupati, to conduct the Aashada Gupta Varaahi Navaratrulu–9 day Navratri pageant–from June 26 to July 5.
In an order handed on June 16 the petitioner, together with one Y Gangi Reddy (Respondent 7)- with whom the petitioner was concerned in a land dispute, have been barred by the Tahsildar, Tirupati (Respondent 5) from coming into the land on which the Belief was located and the place the pageant was supposed to be performed.
Towards this backdrop, Justice Harinath N noticed,
“The impugned proceedings dated 16.06.2025 shall stand suspended until 06.07.2025. The sixth (SHO) respondent shall prolong needed bundobust to the petitioner/Sri Aadi Varahi Shakti Temple Belief for performing the proposed “Aashada Gupta Varaahi Navaratrulu” from 26.06.2025 to 05.07.2025. The petitioner additionally shall cooperate with the sixth respondent and be sure that the no regulation and order drawback is created on account of the permission granted.”
