Andhra Pradesh High Court Weekly Roundup: May 26 - June 1, 2025

S Bhargav Reddy vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and connected petitions– 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 104

Nallaballe Sreenivas and others v. The State of A.P. and another– 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 105

M/s. Jaya Venkatarama Industries Limited v. The ESI Corporation And 4 Others– 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 106

Peram Venkata Reddy v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh– 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 107

Manthena Praveen Kumar v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others– 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 108

X v. Y– 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 109

Judgments/Final Orders

Andhra Pradesh HC Flags Surge In Online Trolling, Abusive Posts; Suggests 'Auto-Blocking' Of Swear Words On Social Media

Case Title: S Bhargav Reddy vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and connected petitions

Case Number: Criminal Petitions Nos.8059, 8114, 8320, 8545, 8550 and 8854 of 2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 104

Taking note of the growing menace of online abuse and trolling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has urged the State Government to instruct social media intermediaries to 'auto block' the usage of expletives, swear words, militant words, and words akin thereto, on social media platforms.

A bench of Justice Nyapathy Vijay passed this order while observing that vulgar, hate-filled, and abusive posts on social media have become the "new age norm", and that 'trolls' attract lightning responses all over, particularly when directed at celebrities or political leaders of stature and following.

“It appears that profanity thrives the business entities as they attract instantaneous reactions,” the single judge remarked as it emphasised that every citizen has the right to lead a dignified life, which is a human right recognised under the Constitution of India.

“The State Government is obligated to ensure that this right to a dignified life of citizens is not infringed, and it is in that context that the list of expletives, swear words, militant words, and words akin thereto should be identified by the State Government, and executive instructions should be issued, in exercise of their power under the Constitution, prohibiting usage of such words on social media,” the bench observed in its order passed earlier this month.

Regularization Scheme Doesn't Cover Every Unauthorized Occupant Of Govt Land: AP High Court Rejects Plea Against Eviction
Case Title: Nallaballe Sreenivas and others V. The State of A.P. and another
Case Number: WRIT APPEAL NO: 592 of 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 105

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by certain occupants stated to be occupying Government land who had sought protection from eviction citing a recently introduced regularisation scheme.

Noting that the regularisation scheme did not universally shield all unauthorised occupations of Government land, a division bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati held,

“Mere filing of a memo accompanied with a copy of the regularization scheme would not itself have been sufficient to claim any omission on the part of the Court to grant an appropriate relief more so, when there was no specific direction sought in the petition in the light of the scheme of regularization. Even otherwise the regularization scheme reference to which has been made by the learned counsel before us, needs to be gone into minutely, as the scheme to us is not meant to cover every case of unauthorized occupation over Government Land. The presence of a scheme for regularization may, in fact, is an independent cause of action for which the petitioners perhaps may have a remedy yet again before the Court.”

ESI Contribution, Can't Exempt Establishment Based On Pvt Insurance And Not Having Local Dispensary: AP HC

Case Title: M/s. Jaya Venkatarama Industries Limited v. The Esi Corporation And 4 Others and Others

Case Number: CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1150/2011

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 106

A single judge bench of Justice Nyapathy Vijay held that the mere absence of an ESI dispensary nearby cannot exempt an establishment from liability under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (“ESI Act”). The court clarified that only the appropriate govt is empowered to grant such exemptions under Section 87 of the Act, and that such exemptions ought to follow a separate application and inquiry process.

AP High Court Reduces Fine Imposed On 84-Year-Old Man In Jail For Electricity Theft To ₹20K Citing 'Extreme Old Age'
Case Title: Peram Venkata Reddy v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Case Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 350/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 107

While upholding an order passed by special tribunal convicting an 84-year-old man convicting him for electricity theft under Electricity Act, the Andhra Pradesh High Court however reduced the fine imposed on him from Rs.2,70,000 to Rs 20,000.

Setting aside the said fine, Justice Y. Lakshamana Rao held,

“Section 135(1)(a)(b) of 'the Act' does not confer imposition of Rs.2,70,000/- towards fine. There would have been a justification on the part of the learned Trial Court, if reasonable amount was directed to be paid by the Appellant towards compensation to the Corporation. The petitioner has been in jail for the past fifteen days. He is aged about 84 years at present. If an amount of Rs.20,000/- is directed to be paid towards compensation to the Corporation, it would meet the ends of justice.”

"In view of the extreme old age of the Appellant and the Appellant's impoverishment in payment of huge amount as fine, it is appropriate to direct the Appellant to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation to the Corporation," the court said.

The court said that after the compensation of Rs.20,000 is paid by the appellant, he "shall be released forthwith".

Stranger Can't Seek Survey, Demarcation Of Land Owned By Private Persons: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Manthena Praveen Kumar v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Case Number: WRIT APPEAL NO: 819/2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 108

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has said that a stranger to a private land cannot seek its survey or demarcation, and that survey applications can only made be made by persons who own the private land.

The Court was called upon to determine whether a survey of a private land, at the request of a private individual, could be conducted under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923.

Referring to Board Standing Order, Rule 20 of which allows for applications from private parties to be submitted to point out the boundaries of their fields in accordance with the survey records, a division bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice BVLN Chakravarthi held,

“While Rule 20 of B.S.O. 34-A provides for applications to be made for conduct of survey of private lands, the language of the Rule, extracted above, would indicate that such applications can only be made by persons in relation to land owned by them. On this basis, these provisions cannot be stretched to mean that a survey could be conducted where the applicant is not able to demonstrate a clear claim over the said land. It is clear that no stranger can seek survey of private lands or for demarcation of the fields.”

Wife Filing False Criminal Case To Embarrass, Incarcerate Husband Is Cruelty And Ground For Divorce Under HMA: AP High Court

Case Title: X v. Y

Case Number: C.M.A.No.693 OF 2006

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 109

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that criminal case filed by a wife to embarrass and incarcerate her husband and his family members, when in reality they are not guilty, causes persistent trauma and humiliation in social circle, and constitutes mental cruelty and is a ground for divorce under Hindu Marriage Act.

Applying this principle to a case where the wife's allegations resulted in the husband and his parents facing prosecution and eventual acquittal, a Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tihari and Justice Challa Gunaranjan held,

"Mental cruelty cause much serious injury than physical harm. The criminal cases filed by wife to embarrass and incarcerate the husband and his family members cause persistent trauma, humiliation in social circle which amount to mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of H.M.Act, and particularly when in reality they are not guilty and so acquitted. Such can only be imagined by others. Its difficult to prove mental cruelty and therefore the normal rule which governs the criminal proceedings is that it is proved by a preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt"

“We are of the considered view that the act and conduct of the wife in filing the criminal complaint in C.C.No.228 of 2003 under Section 498-A IPC against the husband and his parents in which they had to obtain bail and were finally acquitted as the allegations were not proved was a conduct causing mental cruelty, and agony to the husband. It amounted to mental cruelty and furnished a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the H.M.Act,” it added.