In response to a legal notice from Kalvakuntla Taraka Rama Rao (KTR), Union Minister Bandi Sanjay firmly stated that he never mentioned KTR’s name at any point during his recent press meet. He called the allegations baseless and demanded that KTR withdraw the legal notice within seven days. Additionally, Sanjay insisted on a public apology addressed to him through the media.
Response to Legal Notice Dated 22.10.2024, Addressed to Mr. Bandi Sanjay Kumar, Union Minister of State for Home Affairs
Under the instructions of my client, Mr. Bandi Sanjay Kumar, Member of Parliament for Karimnagar Constituency and Hon’ble Minister of State for Home Affairs, I hereby issue this formal reply to the legal notice dated October 22, 2024, sent on behalf of your client, Mr. Kalvakuntla Taraka Rama Rao.
Introduction
- Denial of Allegations: My client unequivocally denies all allegations raised in the notice, asserting they lack any basis and reflect a malicious intent. He is compelled to issue this formal response, rejecting any accusations except where otherwise explicitly admitted.
- Public Service Commitment: My client is an active Member of Parliament for the Karimnagar constituency, currently serving as a Union Minister in the Ministry of Home Affairs, as well as the National General Secretary for the Bharatiya Janata Party. He has dedicated his career to public welfare, notably advocating for a separate Telangana state.
- Advocacy for Students’ Rights: Throughout his life, my client has been a staunch advocate for student welfare, actively participating in student politics as a former leader of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP). His history demonstrates consistent support for issues relevant to the student community.
Specific Responses to Allegations
- Unfounded Allegations and Malicious Intent: My client considers the claims in the notice baseless, and he urges that evidence be presented to substantiate these allegations. The notice appears to have been sent with ill intent, which my client rejects entirely.
- Response to Paragraphs 1 and 2: Your client’s statements are exaggerated and lack proof. My client denies mentioning your client’s name at any point during the press conference held on October 19, 2024, and demands strict evidence if otherwise.
- Response to Paragraph 3: My client is unaware of any specific videos or headlines circulating about the October 19th interview. However, he notes that it is a documented fact that your client admitted to “phone tapping” during a Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) meeting on March 27, 2024. Such statements are, therefore, matters of public record and not mere allegations.
- Response to Paragraph 4: My client denies all statements in paragraph 4, pointing out that the BRS administration’s handling of the TSPSC Group-1 exams has indeed been controversial and marked by cancellations. Your client’s statements about phone tapping can be corroborated through official BRS Party sources.
- Response to Paragraphs 5 and 6: My client dismisses all allegations as unsubstantiated. His statements are not defamatory, and there is no intent to damage anyone’s reputation. Furthermore, at no point has he exploited his official position to target your client or anyone associated with them.
- Public Communication Rights: As a Union Minister and Member of Parliament, my client has the right to address public concerns, including those relevant to Telangana residents. His statements align with his freedom of speech under Article 19(a) of the Indian Constitution.
- Response to Paragraphs 7 and 8: My client denies any defamatory remarks against your client. Addressing the media is part of his responsibilities as a Union Minister.
- Response to Paragraphs 9 and 10: My client’s statements are not defamatory, libellous, or slanderous. The accusation of vendetta politics is groundless; my client’s statements were intended solely to address student issues within Telangana.
- Response to Paragraphs 11, 12, and 13: My client affirms that no statements were directed specifically at your client. This legal notice is perceived as an attempt to suppress his right to free speech and deter him from engaging with the public on relevant matters.
- Protection of Constitutional Rights: The rights of my client to publicly express views on public service matters are safeguarded under the Indian Constitution. He will not be intimidated by legal threats and is prepared to exercise all legal avenues to defend his rights.
Conclusion and Demands
- Request to Withdraw Legal Notice:
i. Withdraw the legal notice dated October 22, 2024, and retract all allegations.
ii. Issue a public apology to my client through the media. - Consequences of Non-Compliance: Should you fail to meet the demands in paragraph 14 within seven (7) days, my client will be compelled to initiate legal proceedings against you, holding you liable for associated costs and consequences.
