Telangana HC Issues Bailable Warrants Against IAS Officers Sulthania and Vikas Raj

The Telangana High Court in Hyderabad has issued bailable warrants against two senior IAS officers, Principal Secretary of the Finance Department Sandeep Kumar Sulthania and Principal Secretary of the Roads and Buildings Department Vikas Raj, in connection with a contempt case.

Justice NV Shravan Kumar took serious note of the officers' failure to appear before the court and their non-compliance with judicial orders despite being given multiple opportunities and ample time. The judge directed the High Court registry to issue the warrants and ensure both officers are produced before the court on September 7.

The contempt proceedings originated from the non-compliance with an April 24, 2025 order issued in a writ petition. That order had instructed the concerned authorities to deposit 50 percent of a decretal amount to the credit of an execution petition before the principal district judge in Gadwal within a period of three months.

Despite the issuance of notices, multiple adjournments, and the impleadment of a sixth respondent, the court's directions were not implemented. This prompted the High Court to initiate contempt proceedings against the senior bureaucrats on Monday.

During Monday's hearing, a counter-affidavit was submitted on behalf of the finance secretary. The affidavit cited limited budget availability and a backlog of pending tokens as the reasons for the delay, asserting that the lapse was neither wilful nor wanton. It also mentioned that the finance secretary was on an official visit to Japan between August 23 and September 1 accompanying a government delegation under an approved government order.

The High Court rejected these explanations. The bench observed that contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and cannot be answered through a proxy officer. The court pointed out that the government order permitting the Japan trip did not authorise any other official to represent the contemnor or file a counter-affidavit on his behalf.

The court further highlighted the lack of a concrete timeline for complying with the original directives and noted that the R&B secretary had failed to formally seek an exemption from personal appearance.