Today, On 2nd September, The Supreme Court emphasized that individuals holding high office are expected to exercise a certain level of restraint. This remark made during the hearing of a plea requesting the transfer of the trial in the 2015 cash-for-vote case, involving Telangana Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy, to Bhopal.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday stated that “a certain level of restraint is expected from individuals holding high office.” This comment made during the hearing of a plea seeking to transfer the trial of the 2015 cash-for-vote case, in which Telangana Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy is an accused, to Bhopal.
During the August 29 hearing, the Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of Telangana Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy’s remarks concerning the apex court’s decision to grant bail to Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K Kavitha in cases related to the alleged Delhi excise policy scam.
On August 30, Reddy clarified that his comments were taken out of context and offered “unconditional regret.” In a social media post on ‘X,’ he affirmed his “highest regard and full faith” in the judiciary.
The matter reviewed on Monday by a bench comprising Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan.
The bench noted,
“Particularly when someone is holding a high office, some sort of restraint is expected,”
And further commented,
“It is unfortunate that the courts and lawyers are dragged into this.”
The case dates back to May 31, 2015, when Revanth Reddy, then affiliated with the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), caught by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) allegedly attempting to bribe Elvis Stephenson, a nominated MLA, with Rs 50 lakh to secure support for TDP nominee Vem Narendar Reddy in the legislative council elections. Several others were arrested alongside Revanth Reddy, and all were later granted bail.
During Monday’s hearing, senior advocate C A Sundaram, representing BRS MLA Guntakandla Jagadish Reddy and three others, requested the transfer of the trial. He argued that Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy, who also holds the home portfolio and oversees the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), could influence the investigation.
Sundaram remarked,
“None of the investigative agency officers have been examined. It is the home ministry that decides who is to be examined, who is not.”
In response, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Revanth Reddy, countered that half of the trial had already been completed, with 25 witnesses examined so far. Sundaram, however, pointed out that none of these witnesses were material, and the investigating officer yet to testify.
The bench instructed the respondents to submit their responses to an interlocutory application and scheduled the matter for further hearing in two weeks. On August 29, the Supreme Court had expressed displeasure over Reddy’s comments about a supposed “deal” between the BJP and the BRS to secure bail for Kavitha, warning that such statements could create public apprehension. The Court emphasized that it is a fundamental duty of political parties to respect institutions.
The Supreme Court’s observations came during the hearing of a plea seeking to transfer the trial from Telangana to Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. The petitioners argued that a fair trial in Telangana would be impossible with Revanth Reddy at the helm, given his influence as the state’s Chief Minister. They emphasized that if a criminal trial is not conducted freely and fairly, it undermines the credibility of the entire criminal justice system, eroding public confidence, which could have serious societal implications.
Previously, on January 5, the Supreme Court postponed the hearing of Revanth Reddy’s separate petition challenging a June 1, 2021, high court order, which dismissed his plea questioning the ACB court’s jurisdiction over the cash-for-vote scam trial.
In July 2015, the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) filed a charge sheet against Revanth Reddy and others under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.
The ACB asserted that it had gathered “clinching evidence” against the accused, including audio/video recordings and the recovery of an advance payment of Rs 50 lakh.