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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.
6
11. Further, the Bombay High Court, in Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra, 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 6397, while examining the validity of the Maharashtra Prohibition of People from Social Boycott (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2016, recognized the pernicious nature of social boycotts and their incompatibility with constitutional morality. Though such legislation is not in force in the State of Telangana, the constitutional principle that social ostracism violates human dignity and equality before law stands well established.
12. In the present case, the materials on record, including the counter affidavit and photographs filed by the unofficial respondents, suggest that the petitioner continues to participate in community activities, and no ongoing social boycott has been established. Moreover, the proceedings before the Human Rights Commission, which culminated in an amicable settlement, further indicate that the dispute has subsided. Therefore, this Court finds no subsisting cause for further intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution.
13. Nevertheless, considering the fundamental rights of the petitioner and his family members, and in view of the interim order dated 08.06.2023 which directed preventive measures against any 7 social boycott, this Court deems it appropriate to continue to safeguard the petitioner's liberty to approach the police authorities in the event of any recurrence of similar acts in the future.
14. Accordingly, while noting that the grievance of the petitioner has been substantially redressed, this writ petition is disposed of, leaving open the liberty to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional police authorities in the event of any future act of social boycott or harassment, whereupon the police authorities shall consider such representation and take necessary steps, including making a public announcement or registering a crime, in accordance with law to prevent any such unlawful conduct. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 20.11.2025 krk 8 4546 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.14131 OF 2023 Dated: 20.11.2025 krk