APHC010653952025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WP(PIL) NO: 230 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-53 [3552] Pamarthy Rathnakar ...Petitioner Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi & Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: Mr.GUNDALA SIVA PRASADA REDDY Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): GP FOR HOME, GP FOR GENERAL ADMN, Mr.N V SUMANTH, GP FOR LAW LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 4th February 2026 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) Practising advocate preferred present writ petition purportedly in public interest. The petitioner essentially challenges inaction of respondents in (a) ensuring mandatory and periodic training to all police officers above the rank of Station House officer with regard to arrest procedures under Sections 41 and 41-A of Cr.P.C. to be in compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of 2 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.(PIL) No.230 of 2025 Bihar1; Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat2; (b) in conducting structured and periodic judicial programmes for all judicial magistrates with regard to compliance with the principles and guidelines enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar1; Imran Pratapgadhi2 and Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P.3, particularly, concerning the method and manner of exercising power of remand contemplated under Section 167 Cr.P.C; and further direction has been sought qua respondents to issue necessary circulars, Standard Operating Procedures, handbooks and digital training modules ensuring uniform implementation of aforesaid guidelines by all police stations and Magistrate Courts in the State of Andhra Pradesh. 2. The petitioner claims that despite clear and binding directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court coupled with specific guidelines issued in Arnesh Kumar1 and Imran Pratapgadhi2, the police machinery throughout the State continued to embark on unlawful procedures of arrest contrary to Sections 41 and 41-A of Cr.P.C., which clearly amounted arbitrary arrest, violation of personal liberty, besides defiance of the binding directions. Petitioner also claims that the police machinery has been loath in registration of F.I.Rs, which otherwise held compulsory in terms of Section 154 Cr.P.C. on disclosure of a cognizable offence, despite authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court Lalita Kumari3. Going a step 1 (2014) 8 SCC 273 2 (2025) 3 SCR 1309 3 (2014) 2 SCC 1 3 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.(PIL) No.230 of 2025 further, petitioner also claims that even the Judicial Magistrates, who play pivotal role in safeguarding liberty of citizens, while exercising powers under Section 167 Cr.P.C. have been routinely remanding the accused to judicial custody notwithstanding the fact that the judgments referred to above coupled with the guidelines issued would not warrant such course of action in respect of cases where the offences alleged were punishable for a period less than 7 years. With these general statements and pleadings, petitioner has come with the present Public Interest Litigation seeking for the reliefs, as mentioned supra. 3. The pleadings in the writ petition do not specifically refer to any of particular instance or the specific details of the cases in which the police machinery across the State have refused to register F.I.Rs, that they in defiance of the directions and guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court did not adhere to procedure contemplated under Sections 41 and 41-A of Cr.P.C. and the details of the cases where Judicial Magistrates subjected the accused for remand without regard to the requirement of recording satisfaction. Nevertheless, along with the writ petition, petitioner annexed two undated representations stated to have been submitted by one Mr.Munagala Hariswar Reddy and the other by Smt.Peddireddy Sudharani to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, complaining of a specific violation in their respective cases at the instance of the Courts’ mentioned therein. 4 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.(PIL) No.230 of 2025 Further, under Ex.P4, a list of cases consisting of 147 in number alleged to be remanded cases, has also been furnished in support thereof. 4. Initially, the matter was listed on 10.12.2025, on which date, upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has ordered notice to the respondents. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 4 to 8 waived service, hence, notice was issued only to other respondents, and the matter was directed to be listed on 04.02.2026. Today, when the matter was called, learned counsel for the petitioner tried to advance arguments on merits of the matter. However, learned counsel for respondents 4 to 8 sought for time to file response, so also, learned counsel for respondents 9, 10 and 12. 5. As the matter was listed only once after notice and that too the respondents are yet to file their response, we initially intended to adjourn the matter granting time for filing response by respective learned counsels for the respondents. However, learned counsel for the petitioner opposed granting any further time in the matter and rather insisted to proceed with the hearing. Though we tried to make understand learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter probably would require appropriate response from the party respondents, without heeding to what has been expressed, Sri G.Siva Prasada Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, by raising voice, insisted the Court to conclude the hearing and pass orders on merits 5 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.(PIL) No.230 of 2025 today itself. The behaviour and manner in which learned counsel for the petitioner tried to address the Court in the process requires specific mention, hence, we propose to deal with the same in the later part of our order to follow, after expressing our opinion on the merits of the matter. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the averments made in the petition and tried to highlight that the police machinery and as well as the Judicial Magistrates across the State were really not following the guidelines and directives issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in in Arnesh Kumar1; Imran Pratapgadhi2 and Lalita Kumari3 either with respect to registration of F.I.R, the procedure to be adopted at the stage of arrest to be in compliance with Sections 41 and 41-A of Cr.P.C. or exercising powers under Section 167 Cr.P.C. by Judicial Magistrates on production of accused for remand. When it was pointed out by us to show what material petitioner gathered or collated before institution of present writ petition in support of aforesaid claim, learned counsel has drawn our attention to Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. 7. Ex.P3 consists of two undated representations addressed by two individuals, who were concerned with their individual grievance. The said representations really do not contain any date nor the acknowledgement that the same were received by the Registrar (Judicial). Ex.P4 is a list of cases, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in all the 6 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.(PIL) No.230 of 2025 cases mentioned therein, the Judicial Magistrates subjected the accused to judicial remand. Except for these two documents, no other document has been placed on record, and even these documents are also unverifiable. Such unverifiable documents cannot be taken cognizance of by this Court in any manner. 8. The present writ petition coupled with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is required to be tested on the basis of pleadings made therein and the documents exhibited in support thereof. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that even as recently as day before, one of the Ex-Minister namely Sri Ambati Rambabu has been arrested by police and produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate for remand and that judicial remand was ordered without even bothering to verify whether the procedure under Section 41-A and directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in in Arnesh Kumar1; Imran Pratapgadhi2 were adhered to, hence, in that view of the matter, insisted the Court to summon the Director General of Police and the Director of A.P. Judicial Academy to appear before the Court. Aforesaid submission neither emanates from the pleadings nor any additional affidavit has been filed to bring the said aspect on record. The manner in which learned counsel for the petitioner tried to address the Court in a way putting pressure to hear the matter by bringing in the aspects which 7 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.(PIL) No.230 of 2025 otherwise not pleaded in the writ petition raises any amount of doubt regards his craving for publicity. 9. Before delving into the said aspects and testing the bona fides of the petitioner in insisting to hear writ petition, it is fundamental to verify as to what kind of homework really petitioner undertook to collate the material information for him to come to a conclusion that the police machinery and the Judicial Magistrates were in defiance to the guidelines and directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. As mentioned above, except for Exs.P3 and P.4, there is nothing on record either pleaded or demonstrably exhibited. One important aspect that needs emphasis is regarding the source of information on which petitioner relied on in framing the petition. Para.8 of the petition refers to the source of information to be from the website of Ministry of Law and Justice (Legislative Department), paper publications and news articles. However, in the affidavit that is filed in terms of Rule 4(e) of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2015, in para.3, petitioner has stated that the source of information for filing the writ petition was acquired through the authorities and villagers. 10. Apparently, these two declarations run contrary to each other. Even otherwise, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 also do not correlate with the source of information as declared above. It is not known as to how petitioner has secured Ex.P3 representations, assuming the same to be genuine and submitted by the respective persons therein to the Registrar (Judicial). 8 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.(PIL) No.230 of 2025 Likewise, the source of information set out in Ex.P4 also would not emanate from the declared source of information. The declaration so made in the petition and also in the affidavit filed in terms of Rule 4(e) and the documents produced clearly amount to misleading statements. We are of the opinion that petitioner was least bothered to do any homework before instituting the present writ petition and rather chose to declare false source of information in collating the information, which is clearly an abuse of process of law. 11. The conclusion arrived at by us is also fortified by the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B.4, which incidentally also dealt with the requirements of applicant coming with definitive and assertive material rather than resting the case based on vague and indefinite information. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court also while explaining the circumspection with which the Courts have to exercise the jurisdiction while dealing with matters under public interest litigation, made the following observations: <12. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity- seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for 4 (2004) 3 SCC 349 9 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.(PIL) No.230 of 2025 suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity-oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, court must be careful to see that a body of persons or a member of the public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases, with exemplary costs. *** 14. The court has to be satisfied about : (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; and (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests : (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the executive and the legislature. The court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busybodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect.= 10 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.(PIL) No.230 of 2025 12. We also noticed from the pleadings made in the writ petition that the non-compliance or violation of provisions and directives of the Hon’ble Apex Court those that were specifically mentioned were tracing to the provisions of Cr.P.C, in particular, Sections 41 and 41-A, 154 and 167 Cr.P.C. Conspicuously the pleadings really do not refer to the corresponding provisions under the new enactment Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, <BNSS=), which repealed the Cr.P.C. So, we would like to point out that the present writ petition has been filed very casually. 13. 13. Be that as it may, insofar as the directions those that were issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar1; Imran Pratapgadhi2, which later were also followed by this Court in Bollineni Rajagopal Naidu v. State of A.P.5, in relation to the Judicial Magistrates exercising the power of remand, this Court on administrative side has already issued Circular No.8/2025 in Roc.No.99/SO/2023, dated 05.07.2025 read with Corrigendum, dated 29.07.2025, reiterating the guidelines and it was made clear that all the Judicial Magistrates should invariably follow the circular instructions scrupulously and any violation of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above referred cases would render themselves liable for departmental action. That apart, even one of the directions 5 2022 (3) ALT 407 11 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.(PIL) No.230 of 2025 issued in Arnesh Kumar1 also makes the erring police officials liable for not only departmental action, but they shall also be proceeded for contempt of court to be instituted before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction and the persons aggrieved were entitled to move such an application. The said circular has already been widely circulated to all Judicial Officers across the State. We are also told that similar instructions have already been issued by the Police as well. 14. Seen from the aforesaid spectrum, we find that the issues those that are raised in the writ petition are merely to gain publicity. The petitioner, as a prudent person, also being an advocate, least expected was to make an attempt in gathering the relevant and genuine information by resorting to R.T.I. Further, ought to have represented concerned Departments to elicit the required information, and also sensitized them to follow the directions and guidelines, if at all they were in breach. Without undertaking such an exercise, a fanciful attempt has been made to gain publicity under the guise of the present writ petition. 15. In this regard, it would be beneficial to refer to the relevant observations of this Court in Mallavarapu Lakshmana Kumar v. State of A.P.6, which read as follows: 6 Order, dated 19.02.2025, passed in W.P.(PIL) No.30 of 2025 (APHC) 12 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.(PIL) No.230 of 2025 <…In this regard, it would be beneficial to refer to the Apex Court judgment in the case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal : (2010) 3 SCC 402), wherein, it was held: "181. ........ (8) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations." 4. In BALCO Employees' Union (Regd.) Vs. Union of India : (2022) 2 SCC 333), the Apex Court held: "79. There is, in recent years, a feeling which is not without any foundation that public interest litigation is now tending to become publicity interest litigation or private interest litigation and has a tendency to be counterproductive." 5. In Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdary and others : (1992) 4 SCC 305), the Apex Court held: "110. ..... The busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either for themselves or as proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffling their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation, and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of Courts and as result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the Court never moves which piquant situation creates a frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system." 6. In Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs. State of Maharastra : ((2005) 1 SCC 590), the Apex Court further held that the petitions of such busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.= 13 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.(PIL) No.230 of 2025 16. As observed by us above, the present petition indeed had many shortcomings in the nature of contradictory declarations amounting to misleading statements, besides producing unverifiable documents (Exs.P3 and P4) lacking their exact source. Petitioner also shown undue haste in insisting hearing of the matter by exerting pressure on the Court, referring to an incident of Ex-Minister being arrested and sent to remand a day before, which otherwise, was neither part of original petition nor subsequently pleaded by filing any additional affidavit. Hence, in our opinion, this petition has been filed merely to draw greater publicity. 17. We, therefore, find no merit in the writ petition. We are of the view that this petition is frivolous and non-serious, besides being vexatious. Petitioner also abused the process of the Court by making misleading statements. We, accordingly, dismiss the writ petition with exemplary costs of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) to be deposited with the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority to be utilized for the benefit of children, who suffer from visual and hearing impairment. Costs to be deposited positively within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 18. The Registry is directed to submit a compliance report to this Court regarding payment of the aforesaid costs. If the costs are not paid, the 14 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.(PIL) No.230 of 2025 Registrar (Judicial) shall take steps for recovery of the same in accordance with law. 19. Before parting with the case, we would like to express our displeasure regarding the behaviour, tone and tenor exhibited by the learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing the case. It is very much disappointing to note that learned counsel for the petitioner utterly failed to maintain the decency and decorum meeting the expected standards and rather his derogatory comments and aggression at the top of his voice, intending to dictate the Court the manner in which proceedings are to be conducted, clearly depicted his arrogance, defiance and contumacious attitude which, in our opinion, undermine the dignity of the Court. Since learned counsel for the petitioner is also an officer of the Court, is duty- bound to be mindful of the limitations and always endeavour to uphold the dignity of the Court. He should also maintain absolute professionalism, besides extending respect to the Bench. With a word of caution to the learned counsel for the petitioner, henceforth not to repeat such behaviour and unprofessionalism in the Courts, we rest the matter. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J cs