Telangana High Court Directs CBI to Clarify Interpol Notice Status Against Former MP
In a significant legal development, the Telangana High Court has issued a directive to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to ascertain whether the Interpol red corner notice (RCN) issued against former Rajya Sabha member KVP Ramachandra Rao remains in force. This order came during a hearing on Tuesday before a bench presided over by Justice N Tukaramji.
Background of the Interpol Red Corner Notice
The red corner notice was originally issued by Interpol in 2014, following a provisional arrest warrant from a US court in 2013. This legal action is connected to an alleged titanium project bribery case. The case was registered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) before the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The allegations center on claims that approximately $18.5 million (equivalent to Rs 153.6 crore) was paid as bribes to government officials to secure approvals for a titanium project. Rao has consistently denied these allegations and has been contesting the notice through legal channels.
Legal Proceedings and Previous Court Actions
Rao initially approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 2014 to challenge the Interpol red corner notice. In 2015, the court granted an interim stay on the notice, which has remained in effect since that time. Additionally, the court directed the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) not to take any further action against Rao in connection with this notice.
The petition named several key entities as parties, including the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of External Affairs, and the CBI. This highlights the multi-agency and international dimensions of the case.
CBI's Position and Jurisdictional Arguments
During Tuesday's hearing, CBI counsel T Srujan Kumar Reddy presented arguments questioning the maintainability of the petition. The CBI contended that since the red corner notice was issued by Interpol headquarters in Paris, any challenge or appeal should be pursued in the appropriate international jurisdiction, not in Indian courts.
Reddy emphasized that the CBI had acted merely as an executing agency in this matter and argued that the petition was not maintainable in the local court. This stance underscores the complex jurisdictional issues involved in cases with international elements.
Petitioner's Counsel and Court's Response
Senior counsel RN Hemendranath Reddy and advocate CH Satish Kumar, representing Rao, pointed out that while the CBI had filed a counter, the central government and Interpol had yet to submit their responses. They urged the court to ensure that the central government also places its official stance on record.
The counsel also requested additional time to clarify whether the Telangana High Court has the jurisdiction to hear this matter or if it should be transferred back to the Andhra Pradesh High Court. This reflects ongoing procedural uncertainties in the case.
Initially, the matter was listed for dismissal due to the absence of the petitioner's representation. However, the court agreed to hear the case after a request from Rao's legal team.
Court's Directive and Future Proceedings
After considering all submissions, the court adjourned the matter for two weeks. The bench directed the CBI to specifically ascertain whether the Interpol red corner notice against KVP Ramachandra Rao continues to remain in force. This directive aims to bring clarity to a key factual aspect of the case.
The outcome of this verification could have significant implications for Rao's legal standing and future proceedings. The case highlights the intricate interplay between national agencies and international legal mechanisms in addressing cross-border allegations.
