Mr. Rohatgi, who appeared for Ms. Kavitha, is representing Mr. Revanth Reddy in the current petition.
| Photo Credit: The Hindu
The Supreme Court on Monday (September 2, 2024) sought Telangana Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy’s response to an application filed by Bharat Rashtra Samithi MLA Guntakandla Jagadish Reddy accusing him of questioning the “independence of judiciary”.
The application blamed the Chief Minister of making “several devastating and unrespectful comments on the judiciary, opposition leaders and police officials.”
Referring to Mr. Reddy’s reported remarks about the apex court bail to BRS leader K. Kavitha, the application said the CM made “frivolous comments” about the court and “encouraged the Telangana Congress party to circulate the posters/banners to lower the dignity of the court by depicting the order copy of the court and pictures of the leaders of few political parties by creating confusion in the minds of the general public about independence of judiciary.”
The application filed annexures of social media posts featuring lawyers who appeared for Ms. Kavitha. “File your response to this application… you are dragging the court and lawyers into all this,” Justice Gavai addressed the Chief Minister’s lawyers, senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Siddharth Luthra.
The court gave two weeks’ time. Justice K.V. Viswanathan, on the Bench, said the dignity of the judicial institution should be protected. The judge said the court was “very sensitive” to such comments. It said the dignity of the institution has to be protected in order to safeguard the liberty and rights of all.
“We all come and go. If his liberty is in jeopardy sometime, it is this institution which would protect it… It is unfortunate to bring the court and lawyers into all this,” Justice Viswanathan said.
Incidentally, Mr. Rohatgi, who appeared for Ms. Kavitha, is representing Mr. Revanth Reddy in the current petition.
The present petition is filed by Mr. Jagadish Reddy, represented by senior advocate Aryama Sundaram and advocate Rohini Musa, seeking a transfer of the 2015 cash-for-votes case against Mr. Revanth Reddy to a State outside Telangana.
Mr. Sundaram contended that the Chief Minister was directly in charge of the Anti-Corruption Bureau investigating the cash-for-vote case. The officers report to him.
“So, even if the case is transferred, how will that (officers reporting to the CM) change?” Justice Gavai asked. Mr. Sundaram replied that the Chief Minister would at least not be “in charge” of prosecution in another State.
Mr. Rohatgi dismissed the idea of transferring the case, saying the trial was half over. At least 25 witnesses have testified without fear or favour. But Mr. Sundaram pointed out that the eyewitnesses and investigating officers were yet to be examined by the trial court.
On May 31, 2015, Revanth Reddy, then with the Telugu Desam Party, was apprehended by the anti-corruption bureau (ACB) while allegedly paying ₹50 lakh bribe to Elvis Stephenson, a nominated MLA, for supporting TDP nominee Vem Narendar Reddy in the legislative council elections.
In July 2015, the ACB had filed a charge sheet against Reddy and others under the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.
On January 5, the apex court had deferred till February the hearing of Mr. Revanth Reddy’s separate petition challenging a High Court order dismissing his plea questioning the jurisdiction of an ACB court in conducting the trial in the cash-for-vote scam case.
Mr. Reddy has challenged in the Supreme Court the June 1, 2021, order of the High Court by which his plea questioning the jurisdiction of the Special Court to conduct the trial in the case was dismissed.
