The Supreme Court on Thursday reprimanded Telangana Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy over his remarks against the Apex Court’s judgment of August 28, in which it granted bail to BRS leader K Kavitha in the Delhi liquor policy scam case.
A report was today published by a media outlet, quoting Reddy as saying, “It is a fact that BRS worked for the victory of the BJP in the 2024 LS polls. There is also talk that Kavitha got bail because of the deal between BRS and BJP”.
The Bench of Justice BR Gavai, Justice PK Mishra and Justice KV Viswanathan made the observation while hearing a petition seeking the transfer of trial in the 2015 cash-for-votes case(s) against Reddy.
Initially, it was expected that the Bench would decline to transfer the trial but appoint an independent Special Public Prosecutor to inspire a sense of confidence in all concerned.
The order to that effect was scheduled to be passed at 2 pm. However, when the Bench assembled for the post-lunch session, the focus of the hearing shifted to Reddy’s remarks on Kavitha’s bail.
The Apex Court told Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for the Telangana government, that it did not expect a responsible Chief Minister to give this sort of a statement.
The statement might create an apprehension in somebody’s mind that the Apex Court passed the orders in consultation with a political party, noted the Bench.
The Supreme Court was not bothered about politicians, or anybody criticising its orders. It was doing its duty as per its own conscience, as per its oath, it added.
It asked whether the fundamental duty did not say that there should be mutual respect for institutions? It noted that the institutions should maintain an arm’s length distance, but must have respect for each other.
Speaking of mutual respect between the three organs of the government, the Bench observed that Reddy’s attitude showed ‘adamancy,’ adding that someone had the audacity to comment on an order of the Supreme Court.
The Court said it always maintained that it would not interfere in the sphere of executive and legislature, and expected the same from them as well.
The Bench said it yesterday issued notice to an Additional Secretary, referring to the contempt notice issued to an IAS officer serving the Maharashtra government.
If such was the conduct of Reddy, if he did not have respect for the Supreme Court – the highest court in the country, he should face the trial outside, said the Bench.
The Apex Court adjourned the matter till Monday, making it clear that it was not foreclosing the issue of the transfer of trial.
the petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu.
Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram, appearing for the petitioners, contended that the Anti-Corruption Bureau was directly under Reddy. The eye-witnesses and investigation officers in the case were yet to be examined. The state government has also changed its stance (compared to an earlier case) regarding the possibility of Reddy influencing witnesses, he added.
Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, also representing the petitioners, referred to the petitioners’ apprehensions about the trial, in light of the Telangana government’s manner of prosecution and certain statements made by Reddy himself with regard to police officials as well as the Supreme Court.
Appearing for the Telangana government, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy submitted that there was no change in the investigation officers since the earlier case, and the trial was stayed by a Supreme Court bench led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna in August 2021.
Appearing for the respondents (Telangana government, Reddy and others), Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Siddharth Luthra and Menaka Guruswamy objected to the contentions raised by the petitioners.
Initially, after hearing the parties, the Apex Court expressed reservations about entertaining petitions such as the one at hand, based only on apprehensions, as they may amounted to ‘disbelieving’ judicial officers.
The Bench noted that the matter has remained pending since 2021. There was a stay in place and the petitioners did not take any steps. It was only after the general elections 2024, that the petitioners filed the plea.
The Bench asked the Telangana government about the steps taken to show that the government was interested in prosecuting Reddy (such as seeking vacation of the stay on trial).
The Senior Counsel said that wherever there has been a quashing, the ACB has challenged the quashing, including the one before the Apex Court.
During the post-lunch session, the Apex Court considered the remarks made by Reddy in respect of Kavitha’s bail.
While Rohatgi apologised to the Court on behalf of Reddy, Luthra said that he would get instructions.
On the other hand, Naidu beseeched the court to consider what fear of reputation the High Court and lower Court judges must have when such statements were being made by Reddy about the Supreme Court.
Regarding the appointment of an SPP, the names of V Surender Rao (currently the prosecutor in Reddy’s case) and Uma Maheswara Rao came up. However, the proceedings were adjourned till Monday.
The instant petition was filed by four members of the Telangana Legislative Council, seeking transfer of the trial in the State of Telangana through Additional Superintendent of Police Vs. A. Revanth Reddy & Ors. and The State of Telangana through Additional Superintendent of Police Vs. Sandra Venkata Veeraiah to Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. These cases were pending trial before a Special judge in Telangana.
The Supreme Court issued a notice on the petition on February 9, seeking responses from both the Telangana government and Reddy.
The petitioners alleged that Reddy offered a advance bribe of Rs 50 lakh to MLA Elvis Stephenson, the de facto complainant in the case, asking him to either abstain from voting or to vote in favor of the Telugu Desam Party during the 2015 Telangana MLC elections.
They further alleged that it was done on the behest of Reddy’s former ‘boss’ and Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Nara Chandrababu Naidu.
The petition claimed that the accused were caught red-handed in broad daylight by the Anti-corruption Bureau. However, considering that the prime accused was Telangana’s present Chief Minister, a transfer to an independent State was being prayed to ensure a fair trial.
The plea further contended that there were 88 cases pending against Reddy, who threatened senior police officials of Telangana. The accused in the case were able to obtain a stay on proceedings from lower courts, as well as the Apex Court, hampering the trial since 2015.
The pattern of filing frivolous applications and petitions by the accused one after the other clearly indicated that the accused indulged in prolonging the trial on one pretext or the other. They failed in all their attempts but succeeded in deferring the trial to date, added the petition.