Today(on 30th August), Telangana Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy clarified on X that he holds the Indian judiciary in the highest regard and regrets any misinterpretation of his comments from August 29, 2024. He emphasized his unwavering respect for the judicial process and its independence.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
![[BREAKING] "I have the Highest Regard and Full Faith in the Indian Judiciary": CM Revanth Reddy Apologizes for Misinterpretation & Clarifies Comments on SC K. Kavitha Bail Decision](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/image-381.png?resize=820%2C461&ssl=1)
NEW DELHI: Telangana Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy found himself in the eye of a storm after comments attributed to him in the media led to criticism from the Supreme Court.
Today(on 30th August), in a post on X (formerly Twitter), Mr. Reddy sought to clarify his stance, stating-
“I hold the Indian judiciary in the highest regard and have complete faith in its integrity. I acknowledge that some press reports from August 29, 2024, may have given the impression that I was questioning the wisdom of the Hon’ble Court.”
Mr. Reddy further emphasized his respect for the judicial process by adding-
“I want to reaffirm my strong belief in the judicial process and express my sincere regret for the statements reported in the press. Those remarks were taken out of context. I have unwavering respect for the judiciary and its independence, and as a staunch supporter of the Constitution of India, I continue to hold the judiciary in the highest esteem.”
The controversy arose after the Supreme Court accused Mr. Reddy of making “irresponsible” comments that amounted to “casting aspersions” on the court. This followed the court’s decision to grant bail to Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K. Kavitha in the Delhi excise policy case. Mr. Reddy was reported to have suggested that Ms. Kavitha’s bail was the result of a deal between the BRS and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
During the hearing, Union Minister Bandi Sanjay Kumar also made headlines for his tweet alleging a political collusion between the Congress and the BJP in the context of the bail order. Other leaders from both the Congress and the BJP in Telangana had also issued statements in response to the court’s decision.
Addressing the concerns, Justice B.R. Gavai stated-
“Do we issue our orders based on consultations with political parties? We do not consider the party affiliations of politicians, nor are we concerned with their criticism of our decisions. We fulfill our responsibilities in accordance with the Constitution and our oath.”
These remarks were made to senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Siddharth Luthra, who were representing Mr. Reddy.
Justice K.V. Viswanathan, who was also on the Bench, stressed the importance of maintaining mutual respect among the three organs of governance—the legislature, government, and judiciary.
He remarked-
“There must be mutual respect among the legislature, government, and judiciary. How can such an irresponsible statement be made by someone holding the office of Chief Minister?”
Background of the Bail Decision
The Bench, which included Justices Gavai and Viswanathan, had granted bail to Ms. Kavitha on August 27, primarily on the grounds that the investigation was complete, she had already spent five months in jail, and there was little likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future.
However, the situation escalated on Thursday morning when the same judges, along with Justice P.K. Mishra, were hearing a petition filed by BRS MLA Guntakandla Jagadish Reddy. The petition sought to shift the trial in the 2015 cash-for-vote case, in which Mr. Revanth Reddy is a prime accused, to a state outside Telangana.
The court indicated its intention to appoint a Special Prosecutor rather than move the case outside Telangana. A formal order was expected later in the day after consulting with Telangana High Court judges.
Escalation of the Situation
At 2 p.m., the atmosphere in the courtroom shifted dramatically as the Bench, reacting to media reports of Mr. Reddy’s comments, accused the Chief Minister of challenging the authority of the Supreme Court. This was a significant turning point in the proceedings.
Senior advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, representing Mr. Jagadish Reddy, argued that Mr. Revanth Reddy had previously threatened the investigating officers in the cash-for-vote case. He contended that the trial would not be fair if conducted within Telangana, given Mr. Reddy’s dual roles as Chief Minister and Home Minister.
“Mr. Revanth Reddy was involved in the case as both the prosecutor and the accused.”
– Mr. Naidu asserted, emphasizing that if Mr. Reddy had the “audacity” to challenge the Supreme Court’s orders, it would be difficult to predict his actions during the trial proceedings in Telangana.
Justice Gavai responded sternly-
“If someone has the audacity to comment on a Supreme Court order in this manner and exhibits such stubbornness, then let Mr. Revanth Reddy face trial outside the State.”
Mr. Rohatgi, in defense of Mr. Reddy, requested the court for more time to communicate with the Chief Minister. Consequently, the court agreed to defer the case to September 2.
Historical Context: The Cash-for-Vote Case
The cash-for-vote case dates back to May 31, 2015, when Mr. Revanth Reddy, then a member of the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), was apprehended by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) while allegedly offering a Rs.50 lakh bribe to Elvis Stephenson, a nominated MLA, in exchange for supporting TDP nominee Vem Narendar Reddy in the legislative council elections.
In July 2015, the ACB filed a chargesheet against Mr. Reddy and others under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.
The controversy surrounding this case continued to escalate, with Mr. Reddy filing a separate petition in the Supreme Court, challenging a High Court order that dismissed his plea questioning the jurisdiction of an ACB court to conduct the trial. On January 5, the apex court deferred the hearing of this petition until February 2024.
Mr. Reddy’s appeal in the Supreme Court challenges the June 1, 2021 order of the High Court, which had upheld the Special Court’s jurisdiction in the case.