V. Pranav Kumar vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 6626 Tel

Telangana High Court

V. Pranav Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 20 November, 2025

Author: N.Tukaramji

Bench: N.Tukaramji

        THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

                 WRIT PETITION No.14131 OF 2023

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of

India seeking the following relief:

"...issue a writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of Constitution of India declaring the actions of Respondent No 1 to 8 to not taking any action against the Respondents No 9 to 25 and for imposing social boycott against the petitioner and his family which are totally illegal arbitrary against the principles of Natural Justice and the same is against the provisions of the Article 14 17 and 21 of the Constitution of India and issue a appropriate direction for the enforcement of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14 17 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to lift the social boycott of the petitioner and his family and to pass...."

2. Heard Mr. Suresh Shiv Sagar, learned counsel for the

petitioner, Mr. D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Home appearing for respondents No.1 and 3 to 5, learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.2

and 6 to 8, Mr. Srinivasa Rao Putluri, learned counsel for

respondent Nos.9 and 11 to 25 and Mr. G.S.Mallikarjun, learned

counsel for respondent No.10.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ

petition has been filed challenging the inaction of respondent Nos. 1

to 8/the police authorities in not taking any action against

respondent Nos. 9 to 25, despite the alleged imposition of a social

boycott upon the petitioner and his family members. It is further

submitted that the petitioner's representation dated 11.05.2023,

requesting intervention to lift the said social boycott, was not acted

upon, thereby compelling the petitioner to approach this Court

seeking appropriate directions.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the unofficial

respondents have imposed a social boycott and ostracized the

petitioner and his family members, which is violative of their

fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the

Constitution of India. He submits that this Court, by an interim order

dated 08.06.2023, had directed the respondent-police authorities to

take necessary steps to prevent any social boycott of the petitioner,

including, if necessary, making a public announcement, and to

ensure that no inconvenience is caused to the petitioner and his

family members. He further submits that, as of now, the concerned

police have registered a crime and proceedings are pending before

the jurisdictional Magistrate. Nonetheless, he seeks issuance of

appropriate directions to the respondent-police authorities to ensure

that no future acts of boycott or ostracism are carried out against the

petitioner.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home,

representing respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to 5, submits that, based on

the petitioner's representation dated 11.05.2023, Crime No. 152 of

2023 was registered, and after due investigation, a charge sheet

was filed. The matter has been taken on file as C.C. No. 1097 of

2023 before the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Nampally, Hyderabad, and is pending for trial. Thus, it is contended

that the grievance of the petitioner has been appropriately

addressed, and no further directions are warranted.

6. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents submits that, as

reflected in their counter affidavit, the allegations of boycott or

ostracism are unfounded. It is submitted that the petitioner continues

to participate in community activities, and to substantiate the same,

certain photographs have been filed. It is further submitted that the

petitioner had previously approached the State Human Rights

Commission on 17.10.2022 with similar allegations, which were

disposed of by order dated 22.12.2022 upon recording that the

matter had been amicably settled within the community in the

presence of elders. Therefore, the allegations of social boycott are

not supported by credible material or continuing cause. The learned

counsel contends that if the petitioner has any further grievance, he

may seek remedies available under the general law, and issuance of

a writ of continuing mandamus by this Court would be neither proper

nor maintainable. It is further urged that, as the alleged cause of

action no longer survives, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed,

reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate authorities

in the event of any future grievance.

7. I have perused the material available on record.

8. The prayer set out in thepetition is of twofold: (i) that his

representation dated 11.05.2023 was not acted upon by the police

authorities; and (ii) that the police authorities should be directed to

take preventive action against any social boycott or ostracism by the

unofficial respondents.

9. As regards the first contention, it is evident from the

submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that,

based on the petitioner's representation, Crime No. 152 of 2023 was

registered and, upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet

was filed and the case has been numbered as C.C. No. 1097 of

2023 before the competent Magistrate. This clearly demonstrates

that the petitioner's representation has been duly acted upon by the

respondent-police authorities, and therefore, the grievance raised in

that regard no longer survives.

10. Coming to the second contention, the allegation pertains to

social boycott or ostracism of the petitioner and his family members

by the unofficial respondents. Admittedly, there exists no specific

statutory provision empowering this Court to issue a direct

mandamus to the police authorities to act in a particular manner in

matters of private social ostracism. However, any form of social

boycott, which results in deprivation of fundamental rights such as

the right to dignity, equality, or liberty guaranteed under Articles 14,

19, and 21 of the Constitution, is unconstitutional and impermissible

in law. In this context, reference may be made to the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India,

(2016) 7 SCC 221, wherein it was held that the right to dignity and

social reputation forms an integral part of the right to life under

Article 21 of the Constitution.