Nimmagadda Saroja v. State of Telangana
In the High Court of Telangana
Before Justice T. Vinod Kumar
Decided on June 18, 2020
Relevancy of the case: Writ of mandamus to declare inactivity of the respondent authority for delay in a case involving threats from an unknown number
Statutes and Provisions Involved
- The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 66E, 67, 67A)
- The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 354A(1), 354A(2), 354C, 354D, 384, 420, 448, 504, 506, 509)
- The Constitution of India (Article 19, 20, 21, 226)
Relevant Facts of the Case
- The petitioner filed the writ petition to declare the inaction of the fifth respondent in a case that was filed by the petitioner against the seventh respondent.
Prominent Arguments by the Advocates
- The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the petitioner received threats from an unknown number, to withdraw the case or the petitioner would have to suffer dire consequences, after lodging a complaint with the fifth respondent who failed to be prompt in his duties.
- The respondents’ counsel argued that the counter affidavit submitted by the fifth respondent stated that, while the respondent took note of the petitioner’s complaint, he could not take further actions because of urgent duties during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Opinion of the Bench
- The court was of the view that the counter affidavit was self-explanatory. However, the fifth respondent was to take actions within 3 months of the receipt of a copy of the order passed by the court.
- The writ petition was disposed of.
This case summary has been prepared by Nandini Gadgil, an undergraduate student at DES Shri Navalmal Firodia Law College, Pune, during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in January/February 2021.