Telangana HC Quashes FIR Against BRS Leader KT Rama Rao For Permitting Drone Over Lakshmi Barrage Project, Sharing Video On Social Media

The Telangana High Court on Monday (April 21) quashed an FIR lodged against BRS leader Kalvakuntla Taraka Rama Rao, alleging that on his behest last year two co-accused along with social media persons, forcibly entered Medigadda Barrage–stated to be an important project–flew drones over the area without permission, threatening the same.

For context, the Medigadda Barrage also known as Lakshmi Barrage is stated to be the starting point of the Kaleshwaram Project, an irrigation project on the Godavari river. It was alleged that despite the Medigadda Barrage which was included in the 'Yellow Zone' and in the Digistal Sky Platform, the two co-accused on the behest of A1 (KT Rama Rao) forcibly entered the site, pushing away the police personnel, recorded drone videos and released them on the internet.

It was alleged there was a case lodge already in 2023 on damage caused to the pillars of Medigadda Barrage which is under investigation and a Judicial Commission is probing into the alleged irregularities and embezzlement of public funds and other serious aspects in the construction of Kaleshwaram Project.

The FIR was registered under BNS Sections 223 (b) (disobedience of public servants order which causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray) read with 3 (5) (common intention), Section 3 (Penalties for spying) and 7 (Interfering with officers of the police or members of the Armed Forces of Union) of Official Secrets Act and Section 10A (Adjudication of penalties) of the Aircrafts Act. 

Justice K. Lakshman in his order took note of decisions in Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through S.H.O., P.S. Eluru Rural, West Godavari District (2016), N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor (2009), as well as the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) and said:

"It further held that the proceedings shall not be continued due to technical defect of obtaining prior permission under Section - 155 (2) of Cr.P.C. and taking cognizance on the complaint filed by V.R.O. and it is against the purport of Section - 195 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C. In the present case, the Investigating Officer did not follow the aforesaid procedure while registering the aforesaid crime. Thus, the proceedings against the petitioners for the offence under Section - 223(b) of BNS are liable to be quashed".

The court also noted that sections of the Official Secrets Act would not apply unless there was a Central Notification declaring the area as prohibited. It observed that though Medigadda Barrage was included in the list of vital/critical projects but has not been notified as a prohibited place by Centre.

Under Section 2 (8) (d) of the Official Secrets Act, an area will be called prohibited place on declaration of the said place as prohibited area by the Central Government by way of issuing Notification in the Official Gazette.

"It is relevant to note that the Government of Telangana has issued G.O.Ms. No.92, dated 28.12.2019 constituting a Committee for identification of critical/strategically important installations in the State to be retained/included in the “Digisky Platform” in the Red and Yellow Zones at State Level. The said Committee has submitted its report dated 17.02.2020 along with categorization list of Vital/Critical Installations/Projects of the State for inclusion in the “Digisky Platform”. Medigadda Barrage is also included in the said list, but the same was not notified as prohibited place in terms of Section - 2 (8) (d) of the Official Secrets Act by the Central Government...Without considering the said aspects, the Investigating Officer added Sections - 3 and 7 of the Official Secrets Act and Section - 10A of the Aircraft Act. In the counter filed by the Investigating Officer, he has placed reliance on G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 28.12.2019 and letter dated 17.02.2020 of the Inspector General of Police, Intelligence, Telangana State, Hyderabad, along with categorization list of vital installations/ projects of the State for inclusion in the 'Digisky Platform'. Therefore, the alteration memo dated 08.08.2024 adding the aforesaid provisions of law are contrary to the procedure laid down under the Official Secrets Act and the Aircraft Act," the court said. 

It also noted that Section 10A of Aircraft Act  deals with adjudication of penalties, the power of adjudicating the same rests with Central Government. It thus said that the the Investigating Officer cannot add the provision but had gone on to add the same. 

Lastly, the court noted that there was a delay of more than three and a half days in lodging of the FIR.

The court said that the complainant–Assistant Executive Engineer in the Irrigation department, had said that on going through the Visuals in Electronic Media, he has brought the said fact to the notice of his Higher Officials and that "Medigadda Barrage is an important project and, therefore, there is threat to the said barrage due to flying of drones, visiting of the same by the petitioners and others".

The court however said that this explanation was "unsatisfactory". It emphasized that on coming to know about the said alleged incident, the complainant should have informed to the Higher Officials and on receipt of permission, he should have lodged the complaint immediately.

"In the light of the aforesaid discussion, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.118 of 2024 of Mahadevpur Police Station is an abuse of process of law and, therefore, the same are liable to be quashed.  Thus, with that observation, the FIR was quashed," the court said. 

Case title: Kalvakuntla Taraka Rama Rao vs State of TS

Counsel for accused: T.V. Ramana Rao

Counsel for respondent: Public Prosecutor.

Click Here To Read/Download Order