TELANGANA: CBI’s Appeal Revives Obulapuram Mining Case Controversy
Telangana High Court Issues Notices
The Telangana High Court issued notices to former Minister Sabitha Indra Reddy and retired IAS officer B. Kripanandam, following a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) petition challenging their acquittal by the Nampally CBI Court in the Obulapuram illegal mining case.
The court directed both to file counter-affidavits, adjourning the hearing to September 2025. This development reopens a 16-year-old case that has stirred significant political and legal debate.
CBI’s Challenge to Acquittals
The CBI contests the May 8, 2025, verdict that cleared Sabitha Indra Reddy, then Mines Minister, and Kripanandam, then Industries Secretary, alleging their involvement in a conspiracy to grant mining leases to the Obulapuram Mining Company (OMC).
The agency argues that the duo facilitated the illegal extraction of 20.32 lakh tonnes of ore from Anantapur district’s Obulapuram and Antaragangamma Hills. The petition seeks to overturn the lower court’s finding of insufficient evidence.
Nampally Court’s Final Verdict
After a protracted 15-year trial, the Nampally CBI Court convicted five individuals on May 6, 2025, sentencing former Karnataka MLA Gali Janardhan Reddy, OMC Managing Director B.V. Srinivas Reddy, former Mines Director V.D. Rajagopal, and Reddy’s aide Mehfuz Ali Khan to seven years in prison.
Each faced a Rs 10,000 fine, with OMC fined Rs 2 lakh. Sabitha and Kripanandam, listed as the third and eighth accused, respectively, were acquitted due to lack of direct evidence.
Bail Granted to Convicts
In June 2025, the Telangana High Court granted conditional bail to four convicts, Gali Janardhan Reddy, B.V. Srinivas Reddy, V.D. Rajagopal, and Ali Khan, suspending their sentences pending appeal.
This decision followed their conviction for criminal conspiracy and violations under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The bail ruling has intensified scrutiny of the case’s judicial trajectory.
Allegations of Mining Irregularities
The CBI’s 2009 investigation alleged that OMC, under Reddy’s leadership, illegally mined iron ore in Andhra Pradesh’s Anantapur district, causing significant financial and environmental damage.
The agency claims Sabitha and Kripanandam enabled unauthorized leases, rejecting competing applications to favor OMC. The case remains a focal point for discussions on regulatory oversight in mining.
Political and Legal Implications
The CBI’s appeal underscores ongoing tensions between investigative agencies and political figures, with Sabitha’s acquittal previously hailed as a relief for the BRS leader.
The High Court’s intervention could reshape perceptions of accountability in high-profile corruption cases. The outcome may influence similar legal battles involving public officials.
Public and Media Attention
The case has garnered significant attention on platforms like X, where posts have debated the CBI’s persistence and the acquittals’ legitimacy.
Media reports highlight the case’s complexity, given its long duration and high-profile accused. Public discourse continues to focus on transparency in mining governance.
Key Case Details
The Obulapuram mining case involves:
- Illegal mining of 20.32 lakh tonnes of ore in Anantapur
- Conviction of five accused, including Gali Janardhan Reddy
- Acquittal of Sabitha Indra Reddy and B. Kripanandam
- CBI’s appeal under IPC Section 120-B and Prevention of Corruption Act
Ongoing Legal Proceedings
The Telangana High Court’s order for counter-affidavits signals a rigorous re-examination of the acquittals, with the CBI pressing for accountability.
The adjourned hearing in September 2025 will likely clarify the legal standing of the acquitted duo. The case’s resolution could set precedents for mining-related prosecutions.
Broader Context
The Obulapuram case reflects broader challenges in regulating India’s mining sector, where allegations of corruption and environmental violations persist.
The CBI’s appeal and the High Court’s actions highlight the judiciary’s role in addressing systemic issues. Stakeholders await the next hearing for potential shifts in the case’s trajectory.