Published Mar 23, 2026 | 7:47 PM ⚊ Updated Mar 23, 2026 | 8:57 PM
Konatham Dileep served as the digital media director for the Telangana government during the previous BRS regime.
Synopsis: The case dates back to 10 July 2025, when Konatham was arrested by Telangana Police at Shamshabad airport upon his arrival from the United States. He was subsequently produced before a court in Nirmal after nearly 24 hours. The magistrate rejected the remand report submitted by the police and granted him bail the same day. However, despite the court’s refusal to remand him, the police seized his passport and failed to either return it or formally submit it before the court. Apart from this, in orders issued on 18 March, the High Court also quashed three FIRs pending against Dileep Konatham, giving him major relief.
In a setback to the Revanth Reddy government, the Telangana High Court has directed the police to immediately return the passport of former Digital Media Director Dileep Konatham under the previous BRS regime, observing that its seizure and prolonged retention were unlawful and amounted to an abuse of power.
Apart from this, in orders issued on 18 March, the High Court also quashed three FIRs pending against Dileep Konatham, giving him major relief. The cases related to a single incident involving the alleged circulation of “fake news” on social media in connection with the SSC paper leak controversy.
In Konatham Dieelp’s petition seeking the return of his passport, Justice Jukanti Anil Kumar expressed strong displeasure over the conduct of the police, making it clear that law enforcement agencies have no authority to arbitrarily seize a citizen’s passport without following due process. The court noted that retaining such a crucial document for several months without legal backing raises serious concerns about procedural violations and accountability within the police department.
The case dates back to 10 July 2025, when Konatham was arrested by Telangana Police at Shamshabad airport upon his arrival from the United States. He was subsequently produced before a court in Nirmal after nearly 24 hours. The magistrate rejected the remand report submitted by the police and granted him bail the same day. However, despite the court’s refusal to remand him, the police seized his passport and failed to either return it or formally submit it before the court.
According to the petitioner, repeated attempts to secure the return of his passport yielded no results. Two months ago, Konatham wrote to Director General of Police B Shivdhar Reddy, alleging that the passport had been illegally taken and retained without any legal sanction.
In his representation, he also claimed that multiple cases had been filed against him as part of a political vendetta, and that his arrest and the seizure of his passport were part of a pattern of harassment. With no response forthcoming from the police department, he moved the High Court seeking relief.
During the hearing, the police presented a series of explanations that the court found inconsistent and unconvincing. Initially, the authorities claimed that the passport had been seized in connection with a separate case unrelated to his airport arrest.
When the court questioned this claim, they later stated that the passport had remained in the custody of the Additional Superintendent of Police in Nirmal for several months. They further submitted that only on 30 January, 2026, the passport was handed over to an Assistant Sub-Inspector at Pembi Police Station for the purpose of depositing it before an SC/ST court in Adilabad.
Justice Anil Kumar took serious note of these shifting stands and observed that such conduct undermines the rule of law. He remarked that the arbitrary seizure and prolonged withholding of a passport, without judicial oversight, cannot be justified under any circumstances.
The judge also pointed out that even in cases where seizure is warranted, the law requires the document to be promptly placed before the appropriate court.
Emphasising constitutional safeguards, the court observed that the right to travel abroad is an integral part of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Any restriction on this right, the court said, must be backed by due process of law and cannot be imposed through executive overreach.
The judge went on to caution that the court could consider initiating action against the erring officials, including the possibility of ordering the seizure of their passports or imposing penalties for abuse of authority.
The Telangana High Court quashed all three FIRs registered against Dileep Konatham and others, related to a single incident, after finding that the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the legal process.
The FIRs—Nos. 85, 86 and 87 of 2025 registered at Nakrekal police station—were based on complaints by political figures who alleged that certain media channels and social media users had falsely linked them to individuals accused in the SSC Telugu exam paper leak case, thereby damaging their reputation and political standing.
The Court noted that even if the allegations were taken at face value, the essential ingredients required to attract offences under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita were not satisfied. The Court also found no evidence of “mens rea” or criminal intent on the part of the accused. It held that merely forwarding or sharing content on social media, without more, does not automatically constitute a criminal offence, particularly in the absence of any intent to incite enmity, hatred, or public disorder.
The Court further observed that the allegations largely related to reputational harm arising from the circulation of content linking the complainants to the accused persons in the paper leak case. However, such claims, it said, did not meet the threshold required for offences involving public tranquillity or communal disharmony. Referring to its earlier rulings on similar matters arising from the same controversy, the Court reiterated that the alleged posts did not create fear or alarm among the public, nor did they have the potential to disturb public order.
A significant factor in the Court’s decision was the registration of multiple FIRs based on what was essentially the same set of allegations and the same underlying incident. Citing settled legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Court held that the filing of successive FIRs in respect of the same occurrence is impermissible and constitutes an abuse of process.
In the third case (FIR No. 87 of 2025), where provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were also invoked, the Court found that the allegations did not disclose any caste-based insult or offence. It held that the basic ingredients required to invoke the Act were completely absent, and therefore, those charges were also unsustainable.
(Edited by Sumavarsha)
