New Delhi, Oct 4 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Friday pulled up the Telangana government for not offering proper assistance to the Court during criminal case hearings.

A Bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice S V N Bhatti expressed their anger at the state's Director General of Police (DGP) Dr. Jitender, who was present in the hearing through virtual mode.

"I must tell you that we are not getting proper assistance from your State in criminal matters, this is the default situation," Justice Bhatti told the DGP.

"Who is at fault? Your officers or the State? What action have you initiated?"

Justice Hrishikesh Roy said, “Out of courtesy we dictated a very polite order.”

Justice SVN Bhatti told the State counsel, “We did not appreciate how you assisted us last time. All the information on the chargesheet is available at the click of the button so where did it go wrong?”

The Court had directed the Telangana DGP to appear before it after the state counsel could not answer basic queries during an earlier hearing of a criminal case.

Telangana DGP Dr. Jitender assured the Court that such lapses will not re-occur.

Justice Bhatti said, “Scope for such things should not be there again. We will see that such lapses do not happen in future.”

Justice Bhatti asked, “What about the present lapse? What action? You are just repeating from the book.”

DGP replied that action would be taken against the officer concerned. “We will definitely take action, sir.”

Justice Bhatti said, "We do not want to make it seem after hearing the DGP online that we are satisfied and closing the matter. Let him file an affidavit.”

The Court was hearing a plea by Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) leader Vatti Janaiah Yadav, who was earlier part of the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS).

He had moved the top court last year alleging criminal persecution by the then BRS-led state government after he quit BRS and joined the BSP.

The top court had in October 6, 2023, sought a response of the Telangana government in the matter, and provided Yadav interim protection from arrest in thirteen first information reports (FIRs) against him.

During a hearing of the matter on October 1 (Tuesday), the Court took note that the prosecution and arguing counsel were not in sync while making submissions on when a chargesheet was filed in this case.

The DGP was, therefore, directed to be present before the Court to clarify these details.

UNI SNG RC