New Delhi: “Do we pass orders after consultations with political parties?” an ostensibly provoked Supreme Court asked Thursday, voicing strong displeasure over Telangana Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy’s comments on the apex court granting bail to rival BRS leader K Kavitha in cases linked to the alleged Delhi excise policy scam.
Angry over Reddy’s statement about a ‘deal’ between the BJP and the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) for securing bail for Kavitha, the top court said such statements might create apprehensions in the minds of people.
“Have you read in the newspaper what he said? Just read what he has stated. What sort of statement is this by a responsible chief minister? That might rightly create apprehension in the minds of people. Is this a kind of statement which should be made by a chief minister? A constitutional functionary is speaking in this manner.
“Why should they drag court in political rivalry? Do we pass orders after consultations with political parties? We are not bothered by politicians or if anybody criticises our orders. We do our duty as per conscience and oath,” a three-judge bench headed by Justice BR Gavai told senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Reddy.
In a media interaction Tuesday, Reddy said there are doubts about how Kavitha secured bail within five months when Manish Sisodia, a former deputy chief minister of Delhi, got it after remaining behind bars for 15 months and Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal is yet to get the relief.
“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,” he had alleged.
The apex court said it is a fundamental duty of political parties to show respect to institutions.
“We always say we will not interfere in the legislature, then that is expected from them also. Do we pass orders on political considerations?” the bench, also comprising Justices PK Mishra and KV Viswanathan, said.
The observations by the top court came while hearing a petition seeking a transfer of the trial in the 2015 cash-for-vote case, in which Reddy is an accused, from Telangana to Madhya Pradesh capital Bhopal.
In the morning, the top court had said it would appoint a special prosecutor to conduct the trial in the case to inspire confidence among the parties involved.
When the matter was taken up in the afternoon, the apex court discussed the names of lawyers Surendra Rao and E Uma Maheshwar Rao as possible contenders.
The counsel appearing for the petitioners in the case referred to the statements made by Reddy and said the bench should ask the police to report directly to the court and not the chief minister about the progress in their investigation in the cash-for-vote case. Reddy also holds the home portfolio.
It was then that Justice Gavai questioned Rohatgi about the statements made by Reddy.
“See the manner of the statement you (Reddy) made. Such statements by a chief minister!” the bench observed and asked Rohatgi to go over the statement.
Rohatgi apologised on behalf of Reddy and said, “Let me make amends and keep the matter on Monday.”
“Let the trial be (held) elsewhere then, if you do not have respect for the Supreme Court,” a visibly annoyed bench told Rohatgi while posting the matter for the coming Monday.
At the outset, senior advocate C Aryama Sundaram, appearing for Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) MLA Guntakandla Jagadish Reddy and three others, sought transfer of the trial, saying the Telangana chief minister has been publicly making statements about the cash-for-vote case.
“Only on apprehension, how can we entertain…If we entertain such petitions, we will be disbelieving our judicial officers,” the bench observed.
Sundaram submitted that Reddy is now also the state’s home minister.
“There is a rule of natural justice that no person should be a judge in his own cause,” he said.
May 31, 2015, Revanth Reddy, then with the Telugu Desam Party, was apprehended by the anti-corruption bureau (ACB) while allegedly paying a Rs 50 lakh bribe to Elvis Stephenson, a nominated MLA, for supporting TDP nominee Vem Narendar Reddy in the legislative council elections.
Apart from Revanth Reddy, the ACB had arrested some others. All of them were later granted bail.
The petitioners have claimed no fair trial in the case was possible in Telangana with Reddy at the helm.
They have said if a criminal trial is not free and fair, the credibility of the criminal justice system would undoubtedly be at stake, eroding the confidence of the common people in the system which would not augur well for society at large.
January 5, the apex court had deferred till February the hearing of Revanth Reddy’s separate petition challenging the June 1, 2021 order of the high court dismissing his plea questioning the jurisdiction of an ACB court to conduct the trial in the cash-for-vote scam case.
In July 2015, the ACB had filed a chargesheet against Revanth Reddy and others under the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.
The ACB had then claimed it has collected “clinching evidence” against the accused in the form of audio/video recordings and recovered an advance amount of Rs 50 lakh.
PTI