KCR terms SIT notices illegal, cites SC norms; Agrees to cooperate with probe on Sunday

Hyderabad: Former Chief Minister and BRS president K. Chandrashekhar Rao (KCR) has strongly objected to the manner in which the Special Investigation Team (SIT) issued notices to him, calling the process illegal, unconstitutional, and in contempt of Supreme Court guidelines.

In a detailed written reply to Hyderabad ACP (Jubilee Hills Division) P Venkatagiri on Saturday, KCR accused the officials of acting beyond their legal authority and trampling upon his fundamental rights.

KCR stated that the two notices served on him by the SIT were issued in clear violation of law and established legal procedures.

He pointed out that he had already informed the SIT that, due to his engagement in the ongoing municipal elections, he was unable to appear immediately and had sought a later date for questioning.

He also drew the SIT’s attention to Section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which mandates that persons above 65 years of age should be examined at their place of residence.

Accordingly, KCR said he had requested that all further notices be sent to his residence in Erravalli, Siddipet district, where he has been living for several years.

Despite this clear communication, KCR alleged that unidentified persons pasted a notice bearing the SIT’s signature on the wall of his Nandi Nagar residence in Hyderabad at around 9 p.m.

“If this letter was sent by you or pasted on your instructions, I strongly object to it,” he said, adding that such an act reflected a complete lack of respect for the Constitution, the law, and the authority of the Supreme Court.

KCR referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Satender Kumar Antil vs CBI, which clearly lays down that notices must be served strictly in the manner prescribed by law.

The apex court has ruled that serving notices through WhatsApp or other electronic means is not legally valid and that CrPC Section 160 notices must be personally served.

He alleged that the SIT had deliberately violated these directions, amounting to contempt of court.

KCR further argued that the SIT lacked territorial jurisdiction to issue him notices, as he neither resides within the concerned police station limits nor within the jurisdiction of any adjacent police station.

Rejecting the SIT’s contention that inquiry could not be conducted at Erravalli based on addresses mentioned in election affidavits or Assembly records, he clarified that the place of residence at the time of issuing the notice is what matters under law.

He maintained that his residence in Erravalli is an undisputed fact and that the SIT is legally bound to record his statement there.

Highlighting what he termed as selective application of law, KCR pointed out that despite an address in Siddipet being mentioned in an affidavit filed by Harish Rao, notices were served on him in Hyderabad. This, he said, exposed the SIT’s double standards.

Notwithstanding his strong legal objections, KCR said that, as a former Chief Minister, Leader of the Opposition, and a responsible citizen, he had decided to cooperate with the investigation.

He informed the SIT that he would be available at his Nandinagar residence in Hyderabad at 3 p.m. on the scheduled day, as the SIT was insisting on recording his statement there.

“Though the notice is illegal and violates my constitutional rights, I will cooperate with the investigation in the larger public interest,” KCR stated.