In a ruling delivered on 13 March 2026, the Supreme Court of India dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Telangana in the case State of Telangana & Ors. vs. P. Srinivas (2026 INSC 258). The apex court upheld the High Court’s direction to grant accelerated promotion to respondent P. Srinivas as Head Constable with effect from the date G. Venkat Reddy (P.C. No. 2058) was promoted, recognising his pivotal role in repelling a Naxalite attack.
The incident dates back to the night of 30 January 1999, when CPI(ML) Naxalites attacked the Bommala Ramaram Police Station in Telangana. Both P. Srinivas and G. Venkat Reddy were on duty at the station. The police personnel, including Srinivas who was posted on roof-top sentry duty, bravely resisted the assault. The State Government had issued Government Orders (G.O.s) from time to time promising accelerated promotions to police personnel involved in countering Naxal/extremist activities, with the explicit aim of boosting morale within the force.
G. Venkat Reddy was granted this accelerated promotion, but Srinivas’s repeated representations were rejected by the authorities. The rejection was based on the internal committee’s view that his role was merely “nominal” compared to others. Aggrieved, Srinivas approached the High Court. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, observing that Srinivas had fired more rounds than Venkat Reddy, helped reduce the impact of the attack, forced the Naxalites to retreat, and prevented greater loss of lives and property. The judge emphasised that the attack was repelled through collective efforts and it was unfair to belittle any individual’s contribution in such a crisis. The Division Bench affirmed this order.
Before the Supreme Court, the State relied on an earlier judgment (State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Sanjay Shukla, 2023) to argue that the committee’s decision, once taken fairly, should not be interfered with. The bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria rejected this contention. The Court clarified that the Sanjay Shukla decision only limits judicial interference when the process is fair; it does not bar correction when the committee’s finding is perverse.
Crucially, during arguments it was admitted that the High Court’s finding — that Srinivas had fired more rounds than Venkat Reddy — was correct. On this basis, the Supreme Court held the committee’s conclusion that Srinivas’s role was “nominal” to be perverse and unsustainable. The bench observed:
“When admittedly the respondent has fired more rounds and was instrumental in repelling the attack by the Naxalites… his role cannot be belittled for denial of accelerated promotion.”
The Court further noted that the very object of the Government Orders was to lift the morale of police personnel engaged in counter-Naxal operations. Granting the benefit to Srinivas was therefore in complete alignment with the spirit of the G.O.s. Finding no ground to interfere, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition and upheld the High Court’s order in its entirety.
This judgment sends a clear message: while administrative committees enjoy discretion in service matters, their decisions remain subject to judicial review when they are demonstrably unfair or perverse. More importantly, it reinforces that bravery in the line of duty — especially against extremism — must be recognised uniformly to keep the morale of the police force high. For police personnel across the country facing similar threats, the ruling reaffirms that exceptional courage will not go unrewarded.
Case Details: State of Telangana & Ors. vs. P. Srinivas| 2026 INSC 258
Click HERE for full judgment
Lawcutor 