New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed strong disapproval of Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy’s remarks, which suggested a political deal between the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) to secure bail for BRS leader K Kavitha. The court took exception to Reddy’s comments, made in the context of Kavitha’s recent bail, which he contrasted with the prolonged legal battles faced by other political figures.
Chief Minister Reddy, in a statement on Wednesday, had pointed out that it took 15 months for Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia to secure bail, and even Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal is still waiting for relief. In contrast, Kavitha was granted bail within five months, leading Reddy to speculate about potential BJP support behind the scenes. “It raises questions about possible behind-the-scenes support of the BJP,” Reddy remarked, insinuating that the speedy bail might indicate political favoritism.
Responding to these comments, a Supreme Court bench led by Justice B R Gavai, and comprising Justices P K Mishra and K V Viswanathan, voiced concern over the appropriateness of such statements coming from a constitutional functionary. “Have you read in the newspaper what he said? Just read what he has stated. What sort of statement is this by a responsible chief minister? That might rightly create apprehension in the minds of people. Is this a kind of statement which should be made by a chief minister?” Justice Gavai remarked during the hearing.
The bench was particularly perturbed by the implication that the judiciary could be influenced by political considerations, with Justice Gavai questioning why the court was being dragged into what appears to be a political rivalry. “We are not bothered by politicians or if anybody criticizes our orders. We do our duty as per conscience and oath,” the bench stated firmly, addressing senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who was representing Reddy.
The court’s rebuke came during the hearing of a petition seeking to transfer the trial in the 2015 cash-for-vote scam case, in which Reddy is an accused, from Telangana to Bhopal. The bench emphasized the independence of the judiciary, asserting, “We always say we will not interfere in the legislature; then that is expected from them also. Do we pass orders on political considerations?”
The Supreme Court’s pointed response underscores the delicate balance between political discourse and judicial independence, highlighting the judiciary’s commitment to impartiality and the potential risks of politicizing court proceedings.
