'Be Careful While Commenting On Court Orders' : Supreme Court Cautions While Accepting Telangana CM Revanth Reddy's Apology
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
20 Sep 2024 7:11 AM GMT
The right to fair criticism of the judgment is always welcome, however, one should not transgress the limits.
While accepting the apology expressed by Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy for his comments about the order granting bail to K Kavitha, the Supreme Court on Friday (September 20) cautioned that care should be exercised while making comments on Court's orders, even though fair criticism is welcomed.
The Court cautioned that all Constitutional functionaries should act within their respective wings, be it the legislature, executive or judiciary. Unnecessary comments will give rise to friction between the Constitutional authorities, the Court warned.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan was hearing a petition filed by BRS leader Guntakandla Jagadish Reddy seeking transfer of the trial of the case against Revanth Reddy over the 2015 cash-for-votes scam
During an earlier hearing, the Court took objection to a statement made by Reddy that the bail granted to K Kavitha was part of a deal between the BRS and the BJP. The Court rebuked Reddy, saying that it was not a comment expected from a person holding a responsible position, and took umbrage at the suggestion that the Court passes orders in consultation with political parties. Following that, Reddy expressed "unconditional regret" and claimed that the comments were "taken out of context".
While closing the matter as regards Reddy's comments, the bench observed in the order -
"Though we have not proceeded further insofar as that issue is concerned, we want to make only one observation.
All Constitutional functionaries-the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary ought to discharge their constitutional duties with a sense of responsibility in the spheres earmarked for them by the Constitution. It is expected that all the three wings of the Constitution and the individuals holding various positions show a mutual respect for the functioning of each other.
Unwarranted comments as the one made by respondent No.2 unnecessarily bring about friction, which ought to be avoided.
We, therefore, expect that one should be careful enough while making comments about the orders passed by the Courts.
The right to fair criticism of the judgment is always welcome, however, one should not transgress the limits."
As regards the main matter, the Court ordered that Reddy should not interfere with the prosecution of the case against him. The DGP of the Anti Corruption Burue was directed to not to report to Reddy regarding the the prosecution of the cases.
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
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 733
Click Here To Read/Download Order
