Supreme Court Rebukes Telangana CM Revanth Reddy For Adverse Comments On Order Granting Bail To K Kavitha

While hearing the plea for transfer of trial in the 2015 cash-for-votes case(s) against Telangana Chief Minister-A Revanth Reddy, the Supreme Court today expressed strong disapproval of certain remarks made by Reddy over the Court's grant of bail to BRS leader K Kavitha.

For context, a report was published today 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".

When the matter came up today before a bench of Justices BR Gavai, PK Mishra and KV Viswanathan, it was initially expressed that the Court 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 to be passed at 2 PM.

However, when the bench assembled during the post-lunch session, the focus of the hearing shifted to Reddy's remarks on Kavitha's bail. Addressing Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi (appearing for Reddy), Justice Gavai said :

"The manner of the statement he (Reddy) made...(Mr Rohatgi) Just read what he has stated today morning...that sort of statement by a responsible Chief Minister, that might rightly create an apprehension in somebody's mind...do we pass our orders in consultation with a political party? That should be a ground for which your proceedings should be transferred. We are not bothered about politicians, or if anybody criticizes our orders or not. We do our duty as per our own conscience, as per our oath."

In the same spirit, Justice Viswanathan commented, "This is the statement to be made by a responsible person, who is in the office of Chief Minister? Does not Fundamental Duty say that there should be mutual respect for institutions? Maintain arm's length, but have respect. Look at the statement".

Speaking of mutual respect between the three organs of the government, Justice Gavai added, "If somebody's attitude is of such adamancy...This sort of conduct...we always say that we will not interfere in the sphere of executive and legislature...that is expected of them also."

Further, referring to a contempt notice issued yesterday to an IAS officer serving the Maharashtra Government, the judge said, "If someone has the audacity of commenting on an order of the Supreme Court...If such is the conduct, let him face the trial outside. If he doesn't have respect for the Supreme Court - the highest court in the country".

Ultimately, the hearing of the case was adjourned till Monday, with the bench making it clear that it was not foreclosing the issue of transfer of trial.

Detailed account of the hearing

On behalf of the petitioners, it was contended by Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram that the Anti-Corruption Bureau is directly under Reddy. Further, it was submitted that the eye-witnesses and investigation officers in the case have not been examined yet. Also, the state government has changed its stance (compared to an earlier case) regarding possibility of Reddy influencing witnesses.

Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu (for petitioners), on the other hand, referred to the petitioners' apprehensions about the trial, in light of Telangana government's manner of prosecution and certain statements made by Reddy himself with regard to police officials as well as the Supreme Court. 

Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Siddharth Luthra and Menaka Guruswamy appeared for the respondents (Telangana government, Reddy and others) and objected to the contentions raised by the petitioners.

On behalf of the Telangana government, 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.

On hearing the parties, Justice Gavai initally expressed reservations about entertaining petitions such as the one at hand, based only on apprehensions, as they may amount to "disbelieving judicial officers". "From 2021, the matter is pending there. Stay is operating. You (petitioners) don't take any steps. Only after 2024 elections are over, you file such petition", the judge said.

Justice Viswanathan enquired from Guruswamy about steps taken to show that the government was interested in prosecuting Reddy (such as seeking vacation of stay on trial). In response, the senior counsel said, "wherever there has been a quashing, the ACB has challenged the quashing, including the one before Milords".

When the bench assembled during the post-lunch session, it considered the remarks made by Reddy in respect of Kavitha's bail. While Rohatgi apologized on behalf of Reddy, Luthra stated that he would be counselled.

Naidu, on the other hand, beseeched the court to consider what fear of reputation the High Court and lower Court judges must have when such statements are being made by  Reddy about the Supreme Court.

Insofar as the issue of appointment of an SPP, the names of V. Surender Rao (who is currently the prosecutor in Reddy's case) and Mr. Uma Maheswara Rao came up. However, the proceedings were adjourned till Monday.

Background

The instant petition was filed by 4 members of the Telangana Legislative Council/Assembly, seeking transfer of the trial in The State of Telangana through Addl. Superintendent of Police Vs. A. Revanth Reddy & Ors. and The State of Telangana through Addl. Superintendent of Police Vs. Sandra Venkata Veeraiah to Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. These cases are pending trial before a Special judge in Telangana.

Notice was issued on the petition on February 9 and subsequently response sought from the Telangana government as well as CM Reddy.

The petitioners' case

The petitioners allege that CM Reddy offered a bribe of Rs. 50 lakhs (as advance) to MLA Elvis Stephenson/de facto Complainant, asking him to either abstain from voting or to vote in favor of the Telugu Desam Party during the 2015 Telangana MLC elections. It is further alleged that this was done on the directions of Reddy's "former boss" and Andhra Pradesh CM-Nara Chandrababu Naidu.

It is claimed that the accused persons were caught red-handed in broad daylight by the Anti-corruption Bureau. However, considering that the prime accused is Telangana's present Chief Minister, a transfer to an independent State is being prayed to ensure a fair trial.

The petitioners further state that there are 88 cases pending against CM Reddy and he threatened senior police officials belonging to Telangana. Pointing to the fact that the accused in the case were able to obtain stay from lower courts, they have added,

“Accused were successful in obtaining stay before this Hon'ble Court and in the Courts below hampering the trial since 2015.The pattern of filing the frivolous Applications, Petitions by the Accused one after the other clearly indicates that the Accused have indulged in prolonging the trial on one pretext or the other and have failed in all their attempts but succeeded in deferring the Trial till date”.

Case Title: Guntakandla Jagadish Reddy and Ors v. State of Telangana and Ors., T.P.(Crl.) No. 152-153/2024