Supreme Court Tells Telangana CM Not to Interfere in Cash-for-Vote Case
The Supreme Court has directed Telangana Chief Minister Anumula Revanth Reddy not to interfere with the prosecution process in the 2015 cash-for-vote case, where he is one of the accused. The court emphasized that the chief minister should not be involved in the legal proceedings of the case.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan refused to transfer the trial from Telangana to Bhopal. They stated that the Director General of the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) should not report to the chief minister regarding the case. The court also expressed concerns about Reddy’s earlier comments on the court’s decision to grant bail to Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K Kavitha in a separate case related to the Delhi excise policy scam.
The court reminded all branches of the government – the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary – to respect each other’s roles. The bench acknowledged that Reddy had already apologized for his remarks, and said they would not proceed with further action on this matter. They also advised public figures to be cautious when commenting on court decisions to avoid unnecessary conflicts.
The court said that while fair criticism of judgments is allowed, it should not cross acceptable limits. This statement was made while hearing a plea filed by BRS MLA Guntakandla Jagadish Reddy and three others, who wanted the trial transferred out of Telangana. They argued that a fair trial was not possible in Telangana with Revanth Reddy, also the state’s home minister, in power.
Revanth Reddy’s lawyer, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, argued that the plea to move the trial was politically motivated. He pointed out that the trial is halfway through, and the prosecutor handling the case was appointed by the previous government. The petitioners had expressed concerns that Reddy, as home minister, had too much control over the ACB, which was directly responsible for the case.
To address these concerns, the court ordered that Revanth Reddy should not interfere with the prosecution’s work. The petitioners also suggested that the prosecution should be overseen by a retired Supreme Court judge, but the bench decided against this, stating that their concerns were based only on fears and not solid evidence.
The court assured that the directions given would ensure a fair and independent trial. If the petitioners find evidence of interference in the future, they can approach the court again for further action.
In the original case from 2015, Revanth Reddy, who was then part of the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), was arrested by the ACB for allegedly offering a bribe of Rs 50 lakh to Elvis Stephenson, an MLA, to support a TDP candidate in the legislative council elections. Reddy and others arrested were later granted bail.
In July 2015, the ACB filed a charge sheet against Revanth Reddy and others under the Prevention of Corruption Act and for criminal conspiracy. The ACB claimed to have strong evidence against the accused, including audio and video recordings, and had recovered the Rs 50 lakh bribe amount.
