“Do we decide based on political considerations?” the Supreme Court asked Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy on Thursday, in response to his allegation suggesting a political motive behind the top court granting bail to Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K Kavitha in the Delhi excise policy case.
The matter involved a petition to transfer the trial of a 2015 cash-for-vote case against Revanth outside Telangana. A bench led by Justice BR Gavai took the opportunity to reprimand the Chief Minister for his comments.
“If someone dares to claim that we issue rulings in coordination with political parties, that alone is reason enough to consider transferring the case. Let him face trial outside the state,” the bench stated, noting that the matter would be addressed on Monday.
Earlier in the day, the court seemed inclined to dismiss the petition, but the situation changed dramatically when, during a consultation regarding the appointment of a prosecutor, the court learned of the Chief Minister’s statements against the judiciary before the hearing resumed.
“We are not ruling out the possibility of transferring the case… Should such remarks come from a responsible state chief minister? Such statements might justifiably create concerns that the trial against him could be influenced,” the bench, which also included Justices PK Mishra and KV Viswanathan, observed.
Revanth, reacting to his political rival K Kavitha’s bail granted by the Supreme Court on Tuesday, questioned how she was in custody for only five months while her co-accused, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Manish Sisodia, remained behind bars for 15 months. Speaking at a press event, Revanth suggested that Kavitha’s bail might have resulted from a “deal” between the BRS and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) at the Centre.
Incensed by these comments, the bench responded: “We always maintain that we should not interfere with the legislature’s domain. This is expected from them too. We perform our duties according to our oath and conscience. Look at this statement casting doubt on the court. Do we issue orders based on political motives? If he dares to make such allegations about the rulings of the highest court, then we must remind him of our order yesterday initiating contempt against an IAS officer from Maharashtra who suggested the court does not follow the law.”
The Supreme Court was referring to a contempt of court notice issued against an IAS officer serving as an additional chief secretary in Maharashtra for filing an affidavit that implied the top court does not adhere to legal provisions.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Chief Minister, who had not read the statement until then, viewed the news reports on his phone and said, “Let me make amends. The court may address the matter on Monday.” Senior lawyer Sidharth Luthra, also representing the CM, supported this by saying the statements were made amid a political crossfire.
The bench admonished Reddy’s lawyers, stating, “You do not have any respect for the Supreme Court. If someone shows such stubbornness, then we regret it.”
The court was hearing a petition from four BRS politicians who argued that Reddy, being both the chief minister and home minister, could potentially influence witnesses and affect the trial.
The accusation against Reddy dates back to 2015, when, as an MLA representing the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), he allegedly offered a bribe of ₹50 lakh to a nominated MLA to either abstain from voting in a biennial election or vote in favor of the TDP. Revanth has denied these charges.
