The Supreme Court of India has strongly rebuked Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy over his recent comments regarding the judiciary, particularly in relation to the bail granted to BR's leader K Kavitha in the Delhi excise policy case. Reddy had questioned the speed of Kavitha’s bail compared to that of other high-profile political figures such as Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, both of whom had experienced longer waits.
Reddy's remarks implied that Kavitha’s expedited bail could be indicative of political favoritism or manipulation, suggesting that Kavitha’s bail process might have been influenced by behind-the-scenes support from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). This comparison, according to Reddy, raised concerns about the fairness and transparency of judicial proceedings. Reddy highlighted that while Sisodia had to wait 15 months for bail and Kejriwal was still awaiting his, Kavitha managed to secure bail within just five months.
The Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justices BR Gavai, KV Vishwanathan, and Prashant Kumar Mishra, expressed strong disapproval of Reddy's comments. Justice Gavai directly challenged the propriety of such statements from a Chief Minister. “Just see the manner of the statement you made... have you read what you said today morning? Just read. Such statements by a Chief Minister?” Justice Gavai questioned, emphasizing the importance of maintaining respect for the judiciary's independence.
This confrontation occurred during the hearing of a petition seeking the transfer of the trial in the 2015 cash-for-vote scam case, of which Reddy is an accused, from Telangana to Bhopal. Justice Gavai criticized the idea that judicial orders could be influenced by political considerations, asserting, “Do we have to pass our order in consultation with a political party? It should be a ground for transfer. We are not bothered about someone criticizing. We do our duty as per our conscience.”
Rohatgi assured the bench that he would discuss the matter with Reddy and ensure that corrective measures would be taken. Despite acknowledging the role of criticism in public discourse, the bench stressed that the judiciary must continue to perform its duties impartially and without external influence. Justice Viswanathan added, “It is a fundamental duty to keep an arm’s length. There should be mutual respect for institutions.”
The court has adjourned the cash-for-votes scam case to September 2. Justice Gavai noted that the court was not closing the door on the issue of transferring the trial. “We are not foreclosing the issue of transfer. We always say we are not interfering with the sphere of the legislature. That is expected of them also,” he said.
Additionally, the Supreme Court has indicated that it may appoint a special public prosecutor to oversee the trial against Reddy. This suggestion arose after Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram, representing the petitioners, argued that transferring the trial outside Telangana would be essential for ensuring a fair and unbiased trial. Sundaram raised concerns about Reddy’s dual role as both the accused and the Home Minister, which could potentially affect the trial's fairness. The case pertains to an alleged bribery incident on May 31, 2015, where Reddy, then with the Telugu Desam Party, was allegedly caught offering a Rs 50 lakh bribe to Elvis Stephenson, a nominated MLA, to secure support for TDP nominee Vem Narendar Reddy in the legislative council elections.
