Formula E Race Case: Telangana High Court Permits KT Rama Rao's Lawyer To Watch ACB Interrogation Through Glass Window

Telangana High Court on Wednesday (January 8) permitted BRS MLA KT Rama Rao's lawyer to be present in the library room in the Anti Corruption Bureau's office–stated to be opposite to the examination room where Rao will to be interrogated in the FormulaE Race case on Thursday, so that his lawyer can observe the proceedings.

Justice K Lakshman while dictating the order clarified that having a lawyer present during interrogation is not a matter of right. However in view of the status of the petitioner, the court permitted his lawyer to sit in the library which has a glass window and is opposite to the examination room.

The court in its order also noted that the petitioner in his January 6 letter did not make a request to the Investigating Officer (IO) to permit him to take assistance of an advocate of his choice throughout the investigation. The court in its order further said, "However, considering the fact that the petitioner herein is a former Minister and present MLA and also considering the sensitiveness of the matter, this Court is of the view that though the petitioner seeks the said relief, as a matter of right, yet as of abundant caution and prudence, this Court is inclined to permit the Advocate of petitioner's choice i.e. Sri J Ramachandra Rao, Senior Counsel (suggested by Sri A.Prabhakar Rao learned counsel for the petitioner) to remain present within visible distance but beyond the hearing range".

The court took note of the diagram of the place of investigation submitted by the Additional Advocate General submitting that Senior Advocate J.Ramachandra Rao, can sit in the library which is opposite to the room in which the IO is conducting the investigation.

"There is a glass window through which the learned Senior Advocate can observe the proceedings. In the said diagram, there is also a room adjacent to the examination room. According to the learned Addl. Advocate General, there are files etc. and Sri J. Ramachandra Rao learned Advocate cannot sit comfortably in the said room," the order notes.

In the light of the same, the court granted permission to the petitioner to take assistance of senior advocate J Ramachandra Rao who will sit in the Library opposite to the examination room and observe the proceedings. However, 3rd respondent/Investigating Officer shall ensure visibility of the petitioner to Sri J.Ramachandra Rao, learned Senior Counsel and learned Senior Counsel to the petitioner.

It further directed the Investigating Officer to "ensure visibility" to the petitioner's counsel, adding that the senior advocate shall not interfere with investigation directly or indirectly including making signs, gestures etc and shall not carry any electronic gadget including mobile phone.

The court also granted liberty to Rao to approach the court if there is any inconvenience.

On Tuesday the had high court dismissed Rao's plea for quashing the FIR registered over alleged irregularities in conducting the race when BRS was in power. The court had said that Rao as then Urban Development Minister was controlling the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority and thus the body's funds which were allegedly misused, were "prima facie" entrusted with him. Today the court was hearing Rao's plea for permitting the presence of his counsel.

Earlier in the day when the matter was called, the court was informed that the interrogation is on January 9. Rao's counsel referred to a Supreme Court judgment in a custom's case wherein the apex court had permitted the presence of a lawyer at a visible distance.

As the State opposed Rao's plea, the court orally asked, "What is the problem in permitting? Petitioner and Investigating Officer will be in one room. Advocate will sit in the visitor's room. Only thing is you have to provide him with some visibility".

The court further said, "There is no question of permitting the lawyer to sit with the petitioner. That I'm clear about".

With respect to Rao the court said to the State's counsel, "He (Rao) is ready to appear tomorrow and he wants lawyer to come inside of the place of investigation. What about visibility? He (advocate) wants to see the petitioner. Is that provision there in Anti Corruption Bureau's office?"

At this stage the State's counsel says that this will have to be ascertained. The court thereafter asked the State's counsel to get instruction from the IO. It further asked the petitioner to give names of counsel who will be accompanying Rao tomorrow to ACB's office. It thereafter listed the matter at 4pm.

When the matter was called again, the court was informed that advocate J Ramchandra Rao will be accompanying Rao tomorrow. The State submitted that there are two options where the lawyer can sit–one is CCTV room and the other is Library.

The court asked if there is any glass visibility to which the court was informed that there is a window in the library. The court thereafter orally said, "He (advocate) can sit in library so that he can see the petitioner as well as the IO. He can observe the proceedings".

At this stage, Rao's counsel requested for a recording of the audio and video of the interrogation.

The court at this stage orally asked the petitioner's counsel, "Why are you asking for audio video?". Referring to Avinash Reddy's case which also sought presence of the lawyer, the counsel said that in that case the allegation was that IO was not recording answers as it is.

After hearing the matter for some time the high court orally said to the petitioner's counsel, "If you want I can keep writ petition pending. But either they will permit counsel to be present within visibility or else they will conduct audio/video. Only one relief you will get today not both".

As Rao's counsel said that no prejudice would be caused to State, the court orally said, "Where is any allegation? In Avinash Reddy there was serious allegation against IO, an IPS officer from CBI. Facts are different here...Tomorrow appear before IO. If you have any doubt come back on 10th Jan I will grant you protection. I will keep writ petition pending".

The matter is next listed on January 20.

Case title: KT Rama Rao v State of Telangana and Others

WP 909 of 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order