The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Tuesday argued that the petition filed by Dr Rao was not maintainable before Indian courts. The agency submitted that the notice was issued by Interpol from its headquarters in Paris. Since the notice was not issued by any Indian authority or institution, the CBI argued, the High Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

Dr Rao filed the petition in April 2014 before the then High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in which he sought directions restraining authorities from taking further action pursuant to the notice and a provisional arrest warrant. On April 28, 2014, the High Court had passed an interim order directing the additional director-general of the CID to not take further action based on the notice. The court had also impleaded the principal secretaries of the Union ministries of home affairs and external affairs and the CBI as suo motu respondents.

In 2025, the case was listed several times but no representations were made by the petitioner Rao or his counsel. The High Court viewed that Rao was not inclined to prosecute the case and dismissed his petition. However, on December 15, 2025, Dr Rao filed a restoration petition and the court accepted it.

On Tuesday, Justice N. Tukaramji heard the petition. CBI counsel T. Srujan Kumar Reddy submitted that the agency was only an implementing authority and had no role in issuing the notice. He said the FBI had registered the case before a court in North Illinois alleging payment of about $18.5 million in bribes to central and state government officials to secure necessary approvals for a titanium mining project.

He informed the court that the US District Court had issued an arrest warrant on June 21, 2013, and that the Interpol subsequently issued the red corner notice. However, no action was taken due to the interim stay granted by the High Court in 2014. He argued that the petition itself was not maintainable before the High Court.

Senior counsel R.N. Hemendranath Reddy and Ch. Satish Kumar, appearing for Dr Rao, contended that only the CBI had filed a counter affidavit so far and argued that the Centre must also place its stand before the court as it had to decide on jurisdiction. They argued that the botice had been issued without seeking an explanation from the petitioner. They stated that the events relating to the case were connected to undivided Andhra Pradesh and sought time to address the court on whether the Telangana High Court had jurisdiction to hear the petition or whether the matter should be transferred to the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

Taking note of the submissions, the court granted two weeks for further arguments and directed the CBI to ascertain whether the red corner notice issued by Interpol remained in force.

According to the case records, the FBI had named six individuals as accused in a conspiracy case linked to a memorandum of understanding signed by the then Andhra Pradesh government with Switzerland-based Bautley Trade AG for titanium mining leases in the coastal districts of Visakhapatnam and Vizianagaram.

The accused include DF Group head Dmitry Firtash, Hungarian businessman Andras Knopp, Indian-origin US resident Gajendralal, Sri Lankan national Periyaswamy Sundaralingam and Dr Ramachandra Rao. US investigators have alleged that bribes were paid to officials to secure necessary licences and approvals for the project and that Dr Rao misused his position as adviser to the then Chief Minister to facilitate the arrangement and obtain personal benefits.

Telangana HC Grants 8-Week Exemption from Personal Appearance to MLC Teenmar Mallanna

The Telangana High Court on Tuesday granted eight weeks exemption from personal appearance to MLC Chintapandu Naveen Kumar, popularly known as Teenmar Mallanna, in the several criminal cases registered against him in different parts of the state. Justice N. Tukaramji, granting the relief, directed the registry to place the petitions before the Chief Justice bench to be tagged along with a suo motu writ petition initiated by the High Court in 2023 to monitor the status of criminal cases pending against MPs and MLAs. Kumar had approached the High Court contending that the cases registered against him had not been transferred to the Special Court designated for trial of cases against MPs and MLAs. He also sought quashing the criminal cases filed against him.

CBI Submits 3rd Supplementary Chargesheet in Y.S. Viveka Murder Case; Says No Fresh Evidence or New Accused Found

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) submitted to the CBI court at Hyderabad that no new accused or fresh evidence had emerged in the murder case of former minister Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy during the latest phase of investigation.

In its third supplementary chargesheet filed before the CBI court, the agency said the further investigation carried out pursuant to the court’s direction was confined to examining certain messages allegedly exchanged during the early hours of March 15, 2019, the day Vivekananda Reddy was found murdered.

On a petition filed by the deceased’s daughter Dr Suneetha Narreddy, seeking further investigation, the Supreme Court had permitted her to approach the trial court. Acting on the plea, the CBI court on December 10, 2025 directed the agency to conduct further investigation specifically regarding messages allegedly exchanged between Kiran Yadav, brother of accused Sunil Yadav, and Arjun Reddy, a relative of the family of accused Y.S. Bhaskar Reddy, during the intervening night of March 14 and 15, 2019.

The CBI said that during the fresh probe it examined the mobile phone data and call detail records relating to the messages. Experts from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory analysed the extracted mobile data and clarified that the timing reflected in the phone data required conversion from local device time to Coordinated Universal Time (UTC).

After such conversion and comparison with telecom records, investigators found that the two SMS messages sent from Kiran Yadav’s phone to Arjun Reddy were actually transmitted at about 7.12 am on March 15, 2019, not on the intervening midnight of March 14-15. The agency said the messages were sent after news of Vivekananda Reddy’s death became known.

Dr Suneetha Reddy raised that the messages were reportedly sent at 1.42 am of March 15.

During examination, Kiran Yadav stated that he had learnt about the death while watching television in the morning and had informed some YSRC social media activists, including Arjun Reddy, by sending messages stating that “Vivekam sir has passed away.” Based on the analysis of digital evidence, statements of the persons concerned and call records, the CBI concluded that the messages were sent in the morning after the news of the death and did not indicate any prior knowledge of the crime.